Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/caseofsouthagain01grad 


THE  CASE  OF  THE  SOUTH 
AGAINST  THE  NORTH: 


OK 

HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  JUSTIFYING  THE 
SOUTHERN  STATES  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
UNION  IN  THEIR  LONG  CONTROVERSY 
WITH  THE  NORTHERN  STATES  


BY 

BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN  G^ADY, 

A REPRESENTATIVE  IN  THE  FIFTY-SECOND  AND  FIFTY-THIRD 
CONGRESSES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


Howards  & Broughton,  Publishers, 

RALEIGH,  N.  C. 

1899. 


4 


s-jijln 


? 7 3,  V / 3 
G 7.3  3 


"By  enlarged  intellectual  culture,  especially  by  philosophic 
studies,  men  come  at  last  to  pursuit  truth  for  its  own  saJie,  to  esteem 
it  a duty  to  emancipate  themselves  from  party  spirit,  prejudices, 
arnd  passion,  and  through  love  of  truth  to  cultivate  a judicial  spirit 
in  controversy.  They  aspire  to  the  intellect  not  of  a sectarian  hut  of 
a philosopher,  to  the  intellect  not  of  a partisan  but  of  a statesman." 

— Leckt. 


COPYRtGHTJiD,  1898,  BY  B.  F.  GRADY. 


209652 


r.  rro 


On 

edged 


ERRATA. 


e 32;-’,  second  Jine  from  bottom,  read 
tor  “ acknowledged.’’ 


“ unacknowl- 


PREFACE. 


This  work,  addressed  to  those  who  hold  that  a public 
office  is  a public  trust  and  that  the  moral  law  of  Chris- 
tendom is  as  binding  on  organized  communities  as  on 
individuals,  has  for  its  primary  object  the  removal  from 
the  public  mind  of  some  of  the  wrong  impressions  which 
have  been  made  during  the  last  thirty-seven  years.  A 
few  of  them  are : 

1.  That  the  States  of  the  Union  are  mere  fractions 
of  the  “American  Nation.” 

2.  That  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  committed 
treason  against  “the  Government”  in  1861. 

3.  That  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  attempted 
in  1861-’65  not  only  to  destroy  the  Federal  Government, 
but,  in  the  words  of  Abraham  Lincoln  at  Gettysburg, 
November  19,  1863,  to  cause  “ government  of  the  peo- 
ple, by  the  people,  and  for  the  people”  to  “perish  from 
the  face  of  the  earth”  ; and 

4.  That  the  Southern  States  inaugurated  the  war  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  African  slavery  in  their  bor- 
ders. 

The  time  has  not  yet  come  when  the  events  here 
recorded  can  be  discussed  with  absolute  freedom  from 
passion;  but  the  eternal  verities  demand  that  we  wait 
not  for  that  time,  especially  since  a fresh  movement  has 
been  made  in  certain  quarters  to  “make  treason  odious.  ” '■ 
The  lesson  these  events  teach  is  indispensable  to  us 
when  we  are  called  on  for  our  voice  and  vote  in  remod- 

' This  movement  was  made  in  the  early  months  of  1897  by  the  or- 
ganized veterans  of  the  North. 


209652 


VI 


PREFACE. 


eling  the  foundations  of  government,  in  promoting  any 
line  of  policy,  or  in  choosing  our  public  servants. 

Briefly  stated  the  lesson  is : 

1.  Many  of  the  mischiefs  done  by  governments  are 
traceable  to  the  ignorance  of  those,  appointed  to  admin- 
ister them. 

2.  Extravagance  is  almost  unavoidable  when  the 
method  of  taxation  enables  the  Legislature  to  lay  uuper- 
ceived  burdens  on  the  shoulders  of  the  taxpayers. 

3.  Whenever  the  Legislature  is  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  critical  eye  of  the  people,  local,  sectional,  or  class 
interests  will  encroa,ch  on  the  rights  of  the  people. 

4.  The  property  of  the  community  or  of  individuals 
will  be  wasted  or  diverted  from  legitimate  uses  when- 
ever placed  at  the  disposal  of  a Legislature. 

5.  No  mere  quorum  ought  to  be  empowered  to  enact 
laws  affecting  the  rights  of  the  people : and  no  law  ought 
to  he  valid  unless  it  has  received  at  least  the  approval 
of  a major  part  of  the  total  membership  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

6.  Written  Constitutions  present  no  effective  harrier 
to  the  avarice  of  classes,  the  ambition  of  individuals, 
the  schemes  of  jiarty,  or  the  machinations  of  fanatics; 
and 

7.  Ho  long  as  the  mass  of  the  people  are  unable  to  un- 
derstand the  structure  and  administration  of  their  Gov- 
ernment they  will  continue  to  he  dupes  of  callow  states- 
men and  professional  office-seekers,  and  victims  of  mis- 
govern ment. 

We  can  not  retrace  our  steps  or  right  the  wrongs  of 
the  past;  but  it  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  a more 
enlightened  generation  now  entering  upon  the  duties  of 
guarding  themselves  and  their  posterity  from  recurren- 
ces of  the  mistakes  of  the  past,  may  strive  to  restore 
and  vivify  the  principles  on  which  alone  an}"  just  gov- 


PREFACE. 


vu 

emnient  can  be  founded,  and,  by  reestablishing  the  sys- 
tem of  governments  in  and  between  these  States  which 
our  fathers  hoped  would  be  indestructible,  ‘ ‘ insure  do- 
mestic tranquillity”  and  “secure  the  blessings  of  liberty” 
to  themselves  and  their  posterity. 

The  secondary  object  of  the  work — secondary  only  as 
a logical  conclusion — is  to  demonstrate  beyond  a possi- 
bility of  doubt  that  the  cause  of  the  South  was  the  cause 
of  Constitutional  government,  the  cause  of  government 
regulated  by  law,  and  the  cause  of  honesty  and  fidelity 
in  public  servants.  No  nobler  cause  did  ever  man  fight 
for! 

Time  is  healing  the  wounds  of  the  past;  the  genera- 
tion of  the  war  period  is  passing  away  and  giving  place 
to  new  men,  to  whom  the  passions  of  that  period  are 
becoming  a tradition;  and  in  a few  more  years  Jeffer- 
son Davis  and  Abraham  Lincoln,  Robert  E.  Lee  and 
Ulysses  S.  Grant,  and  Stonewall  Jackson  and  Winfield 
S.  Hancock  will  be  thought  of.  North  and  South,  with 
no  more  passion  than  that  excited  in  our  bosoms  by  the 
mention  of  Oliver  Cromwell  and  Charles  I,  or  George 
Washington  and  Earl  Cornwallis.  Each  one  of  these 
men  may  possibly  appear  to  the  future  student  as  a pro- 
duct— an  inevitable  result — of  forces,  hereditary  and 
contemporaneous,  of  which  he  was  not  the  creator. 
And,  tracing  those  forces,  as  best  he  may,  to  their 
germs,  possibly  he  may  find  ignorance  and  unenlight- 
ened selfishness  to  have  been  among  the  most  fertile  of 
those  from  which  sprang  the  forces  to  which  he  may 
attribute  any  deviations  from  his  standard  of  right. 

The  author  regrets  the  necessity  forced  on  him  by  the 
object  he  had  in  view  of  removing  the  veil  behind  which 
have  stood  for  generations  the  revered  figures  of  the 
“fathers,”  and  of  exhibiting  some  of  them  to  the  close 
inspection  which  never  fails  to  discover  in  them  “like 


VIII 


PREFACE. 


passions  with  ” ourselves.  He  trusts,  however,  that, 
since  truth  can  be  no  respecter  of  persons,  he  may  be 
pardoned  for  this  offense. 

He  regrets  also  a lack  of  logical  consistency  in  the 
chapters  dealing  with  the  causes  of  the  Revolutionary 
war  and  the  motives  of  the  principal  actors  in  it.  This 
was  unavoidable,  because  no  thoroughly  truthful  and 
exhaustive  history  of  that  war  has  ever  been  written; 
“and,”  as  ex- President  John  Adams  wrote,  January  3, 
1817,  to  the  editor  of  Niles’s  Register,  “nothing  but  mis- 
representations, or  partial  accounts  of  it,  ever  will  be 
recovered.” — -Niles’s  Register,  January  18,  1817. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  well  to  inform  the  reader 
that  these  chapters  were  written  during  the  year  1897, 
and  that  most  of  the  notes  have  been  suggested  by  sub- 
sequent reading  and  reflection ; and  that  even  some  of 
the  chapters  have  been  partially  rewritten,  chiefly  with 
a view  to  condensation. 

Turkey.  N.  0.,  November,  189s. 


A sketch  of  the  life  of  the  author. 


It  is  not  easy  for  a man  to  say  much  about  himself 
without  indulging  somewhat  in  self -laudation ; hence 
this  sketch  shall  be  short.  It  may  be  considered  a piece 
of  vanity  that  I write  at  all;  but  I do  so  solely  to  gratify 
the  natural  desire  we  all  have  to  know  something  of  the 
author  of  a book  which  claims  our  attention. 

I was  born  October  10,  1831,  on  a farm  in  Duplin 
County,  North  Carolina.  My  great-great  grandfather, 
on  my  father’s  side,  was  an  Irishman  who  came  to 
North  Carolina  about  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. By  intermarriages  his  blood  in  my  veins  is  min- 
gled with  that  of  the  Whitfields,  Bryans,  Outlaws  and 
Sloans. 

All  these  families  were  Whigs  during  the  Revolution- 
ary war;  and  they  were  advocates  of  what  v.^as  called 
“strong  government”  in  l788-’89.  Most  of  them, 
however,  if  not  all,  gradually  drifted  toward  Jeffer- 
son’s exposition  of  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment; and  m}^  father,  Alexander  Outlaw  Grady,  became 
a disciple  of  John  C.  Calhoun  in  1832-’33,  after  hearing 
that  statesman  defend  his  position  before  the  General 
Assembly  of  North  Carolina,  of  which  my  father  was  a 
member.  In  I860-’ 61  he  was  a secessionist. 

My  boyhood  days  were  spent  on  the  farm,  where  I 
worked  with  the  slaves  during  nine  months  of  each 
year,  and  attended  a three- months  school  in  the  winter. 
When  I was  about  eighteen  years  of  age  I began  to  at- 
tend high  schools,  and  after  studying  four  years  at  the 
University  of  North  Carolina  I received  the  degree  of 
A.B.  in  1857. 

I then  taught  for  two  years  in  Grove  Academy,  Ke- 


X 


BIOGRAPHY. 


nansville,  N.  C.,  associated  with  Rev.  James  M.  Sprunt, 
the  gentleman  who  prepared  me  for  entrance  into  the 
University.  At  the  end  of  this  period  I was  elected 
Professor  of  Mathematics  and  the  Natural  Sciences  in 
Austin  College,  then  located  in  Huntsville,  Texas.  I 
taught  there  till  the  war  caused  the  college  to  suspend 
operations.  About  that  time  I had  what  mv  physician 
called  the  typhoid  fever,  which  disabled  me  for  active 
work  till  the  early  months  of  1862.  Then  I joined  a 
cavalry  company  which  was  organizing  for  the  Confed- 
erate military  service,  which  became  Company  K in  the 
Twenty-fifth  Regiment.  We  were  soon  dismounted, 
however,  by  the  order  of  General  Hindman,  and  served 
ever  afterwards  as  infantry.  At  Arkansas  Post,  Janu- 
ary 11,  1863,  the  whole  command  to  which  1 was  at- 
tached vras  captured,  and  we  were  all  sent  to  Camp 
Butler,  near  Springfield,  Illinois,  where  we  were  impris- 
oned for  about  three  mouths.  The  rigors  of  winter  m 
that  latitude,  against  which  our  thin  Southern  clothing 
afforded  us  insufficient  protection,  prostrated  nearly  aU 
of  us  with  diseases;  but  in  a short  time  a supply  of 
blankets  and  woolen  clothing  came  to  us  from  some 
ladies  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  and  improved  our  con- 
dition very  much. 

Prison  life  was  rather  monotonous;  but  there  was  oc- 
casionally a little  stir  among  us  produced  by  an  exhibi- 
tion of  authority  by  a small  fellow  called  Colonel  Lynch, 
v^rho  was  our  master.  On  one  occasion  he  had  us  all 
rushed  out  of  the  barracks,  and  into  line,  and  while  one 
set  of  his  underlings  were  searching  our  sleeping  places— 
for  “spoons,”  perhaps — another  set  were  searching  our 
persons  for  money.  On  another  occasion  a detail  of  us, 
including  myself,  were  ordered  out  by  this  little  tyrant 
to  shovel  snow  out  of  his  way — not  out’  of  ours.  And 
when  we  got  on  the  cars  to  leave  the  place,  he  sent  men 


BIOGRAPHY. 


XI 


through  each  coach  with  orders  to  rob  us  of  everything 
we  had  except  what  we  had  on  our  backs  and  one 
blanket  apiece. 

Exchanged  about  the  middle  of  April,  I was  sent  to 
General  Bragg’s  army  at  Tullahoma,  Tenn.,  in  which  I 
served  till  the  close  of  the  war  in  Granbury’s  Brigade, 
Cleburne’s  Division,  Hardee’s  Corps,  participating  in 
all  the  skirmishes  and  battles  (except  at  Nashville  and 
at  Benton ville)  in  which  my  Brigade  was  engaged.  I 
was  twice  wounded — in  my  face  and  through  my  right 
hand— in  the  chai  ge  on  tlie  enemy's  main  line  of  breast- 
works, November  30.  1864,  at  Franklin,  Tenn..  and  not 
many  yards  from  where  Cleburne  and  Granbury  fell.  I 
had  been  in  what  appeared  to  be  more  dangerous  places, 
as  at  Ohickamauga,  September  19  and  20,  1863;  at  Mis- 
sionary Ridge,  where  Cleburne’s  Division  defeated  Sher- 
man’s flanking  column  while  Bragg’s  main  army  was 
being  routed 'By  Grant,  November  25,  1863;  at  Ring- 
gold,  where  Cleburne’s  Division  repelled  the  repeated 
assaults  of  the  troops  of  Sherman  and  Hooker  from  day- 
light till  2 o’clock  in  the  evening,  thus  enabling  the 
wagons,  artillery,  etc.,  of  our  army  to  get  out  of  the 
reach  of  these  invaders,  November  2T,  1863;  at  New 
Hope  church,  where  Granbury's  Brigade,  assisted  by 
one  of  General  Govan’s  Arkansas  regiments,  defeated 
and  drove  off  the  ground  Howard’s  Fourth  Army  Corps, 
wnicli  was  attempting  to  flank  Jo.  Johnston  on  his 
right.  May  27,  1864;  at  Atlanta,  where  a prolonged 
seige  exposed  us  to  danger  day  and  night,  etc.,  etc. 
But  1 had  never  received  a scratch  before. 

After  Hood’s  disastrous  campaign  in  Tennessee  we 
went  to  the  northern  part  of  Mississippi,  from  there  by 
railway  to  Mobile,  from  there  by  water  and  railroad  to 
Montgomery,  and  from  there,  partly  on  foot  and  partly 
on  the  tew  pieces  of  railroad  which  Sherman’s  vandals 


XII 


BIOGRAPHY. 


had  not  destroyed,  we  came  to  North  Carolina  to  assist 
in  repelling  Sherman. 

On  the  19th  of  March,  1865,  while  the  cannon  were 
booming  at  Bentonville,  and  my  command  preparing  to 
leave  the  railroad  for  the  scene  of  action,  I was  sent  by 
our  surgeons  back  to  Peace  Institute  Hospital  in  Ral- 
eigh, where  typhoid  fever  kept  me  till  May  2. 

Without  money,  without  decent  clothing,  and  suffer- 
ing from  the  effects  of  the  fever,  I went  to  my  father’s, 
and  obtaining  employment  in  the  neighborhood  at  my 
chosen  profession.  I waited  on  him  in  his  last  sickness 
and  saw  him  die  of  a broken  heart’  in  the  year  1867, 
having  survived  the  war  and  lived  to  see  the  black 
shadow  of  “ reconstruction  ” and  government  by  the 
ex-slaves  hovering  over  his  beloved  Southland. 

I remained  in  North  Carolina,  teaching  until  1875. 
most  of  the  time  in  Clinton,  Sampson  County.  Then 
my  health  failing,  for  lack  of  sufficient  exercise,  I aban- 
doned teaching,  and  went  to  farming.  On  the  farm  my 
life  was  not  eventful ; indeed  I had  no  opportunity  to 
distinguish  myself  as  a farmer.  I was  appointed  a Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace  in  1879,  and  in  1881  I was  elected  Su- 
perintendent of  Public  Instruction  for  my  (Duplin) 
County,  and  held  that  position  for  eight  years. 

In  1890  and  again  in  1892  I was  elected  to  represent 
the  Third  North  Carolina  District  in  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States. 

I did  not  agree  with  my  father  regarding  the  policy 
of  nullification  or  of  secession.  While  I subscribed  to 
the  doctrine  that  no  State  in  the  Union  had  ever  relin- 
quished the  right  to  be  its  own  judge  of  the  mode  and 

'Two  of  his  sons  had  been  killed  in  the  war.  one  at  Bristoe  Sta- 
tion and  the  other  at  Snicker’s  Gap,  both  in  Virginia;  and  the  only 
remaining  son — the  youngest — besides  myself,  had  lost  the  thumb 
and  two  fingei's  of  his  right  hand. 


BIOGRAPHY. 


XIII 


measure  of  redress  whenever  its  welfare  and  its  peace 
should  be  put  in  jeopardy  by  the  other  States,  acting 
separately  or  jointly,  I doubted  whether  the  nullifica- 
tion of  a Federal  act  was  consistent  with  the  obligations 
imposed  by  the  “ firm  league  of  friendship'’  with  the 
unoffending  States,  if  any ; and  I held  that  South  Caro- 
lina should  have  set  a better  example  than  Massachu- 
setts had,  and  submitted  to  the  tariff  as  other  States 
did  whose  interests  were  identical  with  her  own,  and 
united  with  them  in  appeals  for  justice  to  the  people  of 
the  offending  States. 

As  to  secession,  I believed  it  to  be  the  best  for  the 
Southern  States  to  remain  in  the  Union,  and  trust  to 
time  and  the  good  sense  of  the  intelligent  people  of  the 
Northern  States  for  justice  to  themselves  and  their 
children.  This  hope  was  strengthened  by  the  circum- 
stance that  the  interests  of  the  expanding  West  being 
identical  with  those  of  the  South,  the  time  was  not  far 
distant  when  that  section  would  join  the  South  in  the 
struggle  for  riddance  from  the  burdens  imposed  by  the 
shipping,  fishing,  commercial  and  manufacturing  States 
of  the  East. 

This  was  the  stand  I took  and  held  until  Mr.  Lincoln 
compelled  me  to  choose  whether  I would  help  him  to 
trample  on  the  Constitution  and  crush  South  Carolina, 
or  help  South  Carolina  defend  the  principles  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  her  own  “■sovereignty,  freedom  and  inde- 
pendence.” I went  with  South  Carolina  as  my  fore- 
fathers went  with  Massachusetts  when  “our  Royal  Sov- 
ereign” threatened  to  crush  her. 

B.  F.  CtRady. 

Turkey,  N.  C.,  November,  1S9S. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

False  definitions  tiie  foundation  of  false  doctrines. — These  false 
doctrines  produced  deplorable  consequences. — State,  sovereign, 
citizen,  and  nation  the  most  important  of  the  wwds incorrectly 
defined.— State. — How  the  “fathers”  used  the  word. — When 
did  it  lose  its  proper  meaning? — Sovereign. — Sovereignty  and 
allegiance  were  correlative  terms,  and  allegiance  was  due  to 
the  State. — John  Hancock  on  the  sovereignty  of  Massachu- 
setts.— Citizen. — The  new  meaning  attempted  to  be  given  to 
the  word  in  late  years. — Nation. — What  Mr.  Jefferson  advised. — 
This  word  and  its  derivatives  deliberately  excluded  from  the 
Constitution. — Applied  to  the  peoples  of  these  States  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  "foreign  nations'’. — Any  department  of 
the  Federal  government  can  be  chosen  "by  a minority  of  the 
voters  of  the  Union,  and  the  only  majority  required  anywhere 
is  the  majority  of  States  in  the  Senate. — The  correct  definition 
of  the  word  was  never  disputed  till  it  became  necessary  to  jus- 
tify aggressions  on  the  rights  of  certain  States. — There  are  23 
States  in  tlie  Union  containing  18  per  cent,  of  the  total  popula- 
tion; but  their  46  Senators  can  control  legislation,  the  appoint- 
ments of  judges,  foreign  ministers,  etc.,  and  the  ratifications 
of  treaties 

CHAPTER  H. 

The  union  of  the  .States,  the  objects  and  conditions. — The  solution 
of  the  problem  niu.st  be  sought  in  the  actions  of  the  Colonies 
and  the  States,  and  not  in  the  opinions  and  purposes  of  indi- 
viduals.— It  is  hazardous  to  cite  opinions  of  individuals;  al- 
most every  statesman  can  be  cited  on  both  .sides  of  questions  of 
the  highest  importance. — The  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  limitations  of  the  powers  of  the  Congress  were  ex- 
plained by  the  wisest  statesmen;  and  the  States  were  not  be- 
guiled into  ratifying  it. — Certain  amendments  added  on  the 
demand  of  several  States. — Significance  of  the  word  “be- 
tween ”. — Mr.  Greeley  on  the  deception  of  the  people. — -The 
draft  submitted  to  the  States  vvas  to  be  a Constitution  as  soon 
as  nine  States  ratified  it. — Formidable  opposition  in  some 
States. — The  action  of  Massachusetts  and  the  proceedings  in 
Pennsylvania. — ^By  June  26,  1788.  all  the  States  had  ratified  ex- 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


cept  North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island,  both  of  which  stood 
aloof  nearly  two  years. — North  Carolina’s  objections. — Erro- 
neous constructions  of  terms,  phrases,  and  provisions  due  to  the 
secrecy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  which  framed 
the  Constitution. — We.  the  people.” — Mr.  Greeley  did  not 
read  far  enough  in  Elliot’s  Debates. — To  understand  clearly  the 
relations  of  the  States  in  the  new  Union  requires  a kno\\'ledge 
of  their  previous  relations.— Unions  of  the  Colonies  for  mutual 
defense  before  the  middle  of  the  18th  century. — Opposition  to 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  mother  country.  —The  passage  of  the 
Stamp  Act  was  followed,  at  the  urgent  request  of  Massachu- 
setts, by  a Congress  of  nine  Colonies,  which  issued  an  address 
denying  that  the  Colonies  could  he  taxed  without  their  con- 
sent.— Some  of  the  Southern  States  taxed  16  3'ears  without 
their  consent. — Other  tax  measures.— Conciliatory  legislation. — 
East  India  Company’s  tea  too  cheap  for  the  New  England 
smugglers. — * Boston  tea  part j'.”— Parliament  passes  the  ‘‘  Bos- 
ton Port  Bill”  and  other  repressive  measures. — Boston  asks  the 
other  Colonies  to  join  in  non-importation  measures,  and  in  a 
general  Congress. —Sjunpathy  for  the  sufferings  of  the  Bos- 
tonians.— Virginia  urges  the  other  Colonies  to  unite  in  the  pro- 
posed Congress. — The  action  of  North  Carolina. — Provisions  and 
money  sent  to  the  Bostonians. — “ The  cause  of  Boston  the  cau.se 
of  all.’’ — Twelve  Colonies  meet  in  a Congress. — It  advises  the 
holding  of  another  Congress  the  next  year.— Foll.v  of  the  Par- 
liament in  passing  other  measures  to  punish  the  New  England- 
ers.— The  proposed  Congress  meets  in  Mav.  1775. — Georgia  and 
Canada. — Powers  of  the  delegates. — Reconciliation  with  Great 
Britain  kept  steadily  in  view. — What  Messrs.  Hooper.  Hewes. 
and  Caswell  .said. — Battle  of  Lexington,  and  the  capture  of 
Ticonderoga,  Crown  Point,  and  White  Hall  by  New  England- 
ers.— “The  Rubicon"  crossed. — The  other  Colonies  stand  by 
Massachusetts. — The  rights  of  Britisli  subjects  demanded  by 
them  through  their  delegates  in  the  Congress. — An  army 
raised.  — A Southerner  appointed  commander-in-chief. — A 
stroke  of  polic.v. — Reconciliation  still  in  view. — Loj-alt.v  of 
Massachusetts. — Declaration  of  Independence. — Formal  Union 
proposed. — .trticles  of  Confederation.  The.v  become  the  first 
Constitution  March  1.  1781. — Why  amendments  and  additions 
were  incorporated  in  a new  Constitution  seven  years  after- 
wards - 

Note  A. — British  taxation — How  it  affected  the  lovalty  of  the 

Colonists 

Note  B.  — Unreliabilitv^  of  our  historians. — “Taxation  without 
representation  ” no  new  thing  in  the  Colonies 


34 


CONTENTS. 


xvn 


Note  C. — Why  Georgia  lagged,  and  why  Canada  refused  to  join 
in  measures  of  opposition  to  Great  Britain 84 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence. — It  refers  to  no  government  in 
North  America  except  that  of  each  of  the  Colonies,  and  it  war- 
rants no  inference  that  its  authors  contemplated  any  other. — 
Comparison  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  and  the  Constitu- 
tion.— The  Legislature  two  houses  instead  of  one. — The  equality 
of  the  States  preserved  in  the  Senate.— The  two  modes  of  sup- 
plying tlie  Federal  treasury. — The  President. — His  oath. — The 
mutual  covenants  of  the  States. — The  oath  of  State  officials. — 

What  it  means. — Pension  acts  framed  by  pensioners. — Powers 
delegated  by  the  States. — The  Constitution,  not  ‘‘  the  Govern- 
ment.” to  be  supreme. — The  only  important  additions  in  the 
Constitution  to  the  powers  of  the  Congress  were  " to  regulate 
commerce,”  and  “ to  lay  and  collect  taxes.”  etc. — The  power  to 
“emit  bills  of  credit " stricken  out  of  the  final  draft  by  the 
votes  of  nine  States  against  two. — General  Davie  on  the  power 
“to  regulate  the  times,- places,  and  manner.” — Powers  of  the 
Congress  limited. — Habeas  corpus  and  ex  post  facto  laws. — Maj . 
Henry  Wirtz’s  fate. — “Sovereign  powers”  delegated  in  the 
Articles  as  well  as  the  Constitution. — This  truth  hidden  by 
John  Fiske  and  other  Northern  writers. — Madison  on  sover- 
eignty.— The  powers  reserved  by  each  State. — Ti'tason  against 
a State  recognized  in  the  Constitution. — The  first  ten  amend- 


ment's restrictions  of  the  powers  of  the  Federal  government-  81) 
Note  D. — Acts  of  doubtful  Constitutionality  passed  b3’  the  first 

Congress 52 

Note  E. — Restrictions  on  the  Federal  government  held  by  high 
authority  to  be  restrictions  on  the  States  or  the  people .52 

^ CHAPTER  IV. 

Vicious  doctrines. — The  true  principles  of  the  Government  de- 
nied in  order  to  justify  usurpations. — Daniel  Webster  and 


Joseph  Story. — “One  people."’ — Their  arguments. — What  Jef- 
ferson said  about  the  proceedings  of  the  Congress  in  the  sum- 
mer of  1776. — What  James  Wilson  said  in  an  address  to  the 
people  of  Pennsylvania. — North  Carolina  first  to  instruct  for 
independence. — Why  the  States  were  not  named  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  and  in  the  Constitution. — Allegiance 
to  the  State. — Each  State  retained  its  freedom,  sovereignty,  and 
independence. — It  could  not  retain  what  did  not  belong  to  it. — 
Webster  answers  Webster. — Bancroft’s  non  Hequitur. — “Be- 
tween.” and  not  over.” — Absurd  definition  of  -‘state ” in  Web- 


ster’s Dictionary 54 

Note  F. — What  the  “ stars  and  stripes”  signify 68 


XVIII 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  V. 

New  England’s  shipping  interests. — Leyden  and  its  influence  on 
the  people  vvho  came  over  in  the  Mayflower. — Commerce  and 
the  fisheries,  and  the  African  slave  trade. — In  1727  the  " pauper 
labor  ” ship-carjjenters  in  England  driven  out  of  the  business 
by  the  New  England  builders. — Restrictions  on  the  commercial 
and  fishing  interests  of  New  England  the  incentive  to  inde- 
pendence.— Wealth  flowed  into  those  States  after  the  war.— 
Algernon  Sidney. — Not  satisfied  with  natural  conditions,  they 
applied  for  monopolistic  privileges. — The  Southern  States  vainly 
opposed  their  demands. — Phenomenal  growth  of  the  shipping 
interests  under  paternalistic  care. — The  interests  of  the  South- 
ern States.— Agriculture  did  not  ask  to  be  quartered  on  the 
people’s  treasury  or  on  other  occupations. — How  the  South  was 
reduced  to  a state  of  vassalage  to  the  favored  classes  of  the 
North 

Note  G. — Comparative  wealth  of  the  Colonies 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Navigation  laws. — The  .so-called  comprojnise  by  which  navigation 
acts  can  be  passed  by  the  affirmative  votes  of  one- fourth  plus 
one  of  the  total  membersliiji  of  each  House. — What  Maclay 
said. — Greeley's  boomerang. — Discriminating  tonnage  duties. — 
Tonnage  of  a vessel. — Discriminating  “light  money”  tax. — 
Another  restriction  on  foreign  vessels. — The  coasting  trade 
monopoly. — Discriminating  taxes  laid  on  goods  imported  in 
foreign  ships. — No  dra  wback  allowed  for  discriminating  tax  if 
such  goods  re-exported. — “Home  market”  for  ship-builders. — 
“ Outrageous  pidces  ” for  ships. — What  Carey  said  about  the  re- 
sulting impoverishment  of  the  South.  — .John  Lowell's  estimate 
of  the  gains  of  the  shippers. — A circumstance  which  indicates 
the  extent  of  the  operations  of  New  England's  commercial  and 
slave-trading  operations. — The  magical  effect  of  the  different 
acts. — In  1810  foreign  ships  controlled  only  9 per  cent  of  the 
foreign  commerce  of  these  States. — After  mad  protection  be- 
gan to  allui’e  capital  into  manufacturing,  our  foreign  commerce 
began  to  fall  slowl}-  into  the  hands  of  foreigners. — The  still 
madder  post-bellum  protection  gave  foreigners  81  per  cent,  of 
it. — New  favors  to  shippers. — Ship  materials  exempt  from 
taxes. — Bounties  for  carrying  the  mails. — The  remedies  appar- 
ently ineffective. — Why  some  Southern  representatives  yielded 
to  the  demands  of  New  England. — Why  Southern  agricultur- 
ists did  not  engage  in  ship-building 

Note  H. — Evils  of  quorum  legislation 


CONTENTS. 


XIX 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  first  tariff  acts  allowed  a drawback  of  duties  paid  on  for- 
eign salt  to  exporters  of  salt  fish  and  provisions. — The  petition 
of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts. — What  Jeferson  said. — 

What  John  Jaj^said. — Drawback  changed  to  allowance  per  bar- 
rel, quintal,  etc.— Salt  tax  and  allowance  repealed' in  1807. — 

In  1813  salt  tax  revived,  and  tonnage  bounties  allowed  to  fisher- 
men, but  provifiions  left  out.  — A judicial  decision. — Bounty 
granted  if  vessel  wrecked.  — Eating  out  the  substance  of  the 
people.— What  Mr.  Benton  said. — What  President  Jackson  said 
abottt  frauds. — William  B.  Giles  and  Hugli  Williamson  on 
bounties.— Creed  deaf  to  the  appeals  for  justice. — International 
disputes  about  the  fisheries,  and  the  burdens  laid  by  them  on 
the  ])eople. — Damages  awarded  to  Great  Britain. — They  may  in- 
volve us  in  future  troubles 92 

CHAPTER  VHI. 

Revolutionary  war  debts. — Hamilton  advised  the  assumption  of 
the  State  debts. — MarslialTs  report  of  the  proceedings. — The 
continental  debt  provided  for. — State  debts  rejected  by  the 
votes  of  North  Carolina’s  representatives. — Maclay’s  account  of 
the  ])roceedings. — Members  of  Congress  speculating  in  certifi- 
cates.— A ■•bargain”  hinted  at. — What  Hawkins,  of  North 
Carolina,  said  about  the  speculators. — Wadsworth,  a member 
of  Congre.ss  from  Connecticut. — Madison’s  proposition,  and 
how  the  speculators  received  it. — Robbing  the  people  for  the 
benefit  of  bondholders  demanded  then  as  iiow  by  •‘public 
faith”,  ••  public  credit”,  and  '■  honor”. — They  didn't  want  any 
land. — Robert  iMorris. — Bribery  in  the  air. — The  demeanor  of 
the  speculators  after  their  failure  to  burden  the  people  with 
eight  dollars  for  every  dollar  invested  in  certificates. — Then  the 
“bargain”,  as  reported  by  Marshall. — What  Hildreth  says 
about  the  ••bargain”. — The  South  got  the  permanent  seat  of 
the  Federal  capital,  and  the  Northern  speculators  got  what 
Greeley  calls  the  ••thrift”. — How  much  the  people  paid  to  the 
traders  during  the  first  three  administrations. — Why  President 
Washington  approved  such  a ‘■bargain”. — Why  Jefferson  was 
silent  or  acquiescent. — His  conii)laint  in  his  Ana. — ‘■Noas- 
■sumptibn.  no  Union  — How  Southern  people  felt  —What  cor- 
rupt schemers  learned. — ‘•The  direful  spring  of  woes  unnum- 
bered"  - 1(H) 

CHAPTER  IX. 

B.VNK  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Another  method  of  strengthening  the  public  credit. — Robert 
Morris’s  Bank  of  North  America. — It  became  the  Bank  of  the 


XX 


CONTENTS. 


United  States. — No  Constitutional  authority. — Hamilton's  ob- 
ject.— President  Jackson’s  views. — The  South  against  the 
North. — Private  stockholders  preferred  to  the  United  States. — 

A gratuity  to  them. — What  President  Jackson  said  of  the  au- 
thors of  the  act. — Respect  for  that  Congress  diminished  by  the 
facts. — Maclay's  disgust.  — About  22  per  cent  per  annum 
cleared  by  the  traders. — Money  of  the  South  carried  North. — 

Ties  of  the  Union  weakened . 111 

CHAPTER  X. 

Revolutionary  pensioners.  — Another  .story  of  injustice. — The 
South's  contribution  in  the  .struggle  for  independence,  and  the 
criminal  discrimination  against  her  in  the  granting  of  pen- 
sions.— How  the  injustice  became  greater  as  the  North's 
majority  in  the  Congress  grew. — In  1820  the  disbursements  were 
in  the  North  for  every  one  of  her  Revolutionary  soldiers, 

and  in  the  South  .81.60  for  every  one  of  her  soldiers.—  Washing- 
ton's salary. — Pension  framls ...  114 

CHAPTER  XL 

Disposal  of  the  public  lands. — I'he  ager  pnblicns. — How  the 
United  States  aciiuired  the  public  lands. — Maryland's  refusal 
to  join  the  other  States  in  the  Confederation. — The  pleilge  made 
to  the  .States  by  the  Congre.ss.  - Virginia's  action. — The  con- 
dition im|)Osed  in  her  deed  — Cessions  by  other  States.  Union 
coiuiileted.  — .\  condition  imposed  by  North  Carolina  and  Geor- 
gia.— Kentuc-ky  and  Vermont. — Unconstitutional  expansion. — 

The  (^ost  of  all  the  public  lands  and  their  management. — Dis- 
position of  them  in  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and  of 
the  restrictions  on  the  powers  of  Congress. — Jefferson  and 
Madison  on  the  Constitutional  (luestion. — Ignorance,  ambition, 
and  party  spirit. — New  States  provided  for.  temiiorary  govern- 
ments erected,  officers  appointed,  and  conditions  of  their  ad- 
mission prescribed.  ’■  without  the  lea't  color  of  Constitutional 
authority." — Compacts  with  inchoate  States  whereby  lands 
were  granted  to  them  in  consideration  of  their  relinunishing 
certain  powers.  — Mr.  Gallatin's  advice  to  ilr.  Giles. — The  com- 
pact with  Ohio  the  precedent  until  the  reasons  for  the  grants 
were  forgotten. — Gratuitous  donations  to  Indiana  in  The 

precedent  and  the  e.xcuse  for  snbse<iuent  educational  donations 
in  new  States,  while  in  the  old  States  education  has  been  sup- 
ported by  public  taxes. — Two  (|Ualifications  of  this  assertion. — 

The  Acts  of  Congress. — The  act  admitting  Indiana. — This  a fair 
sample  up  to  1848. — Nearly  twelve  and  a half  millions  of  acres 
grante.l  to  18  new  States  and  Territories  for  internal  improve- 


CONTENTS. 


XXI 


merits,  almost  half  of  the  amount  to  5 States  in  the  North- 
west.— luducements  to  settle  in  Oregon,  New  Me.xico.  Kansas, 
Nebraska  and  Utah. — Nearly  four  millions  acres  granted  aftei’- 
wards  to  the  favorite  5 States  for  canals. — 80,000.000  acres 
swamp  lands  to  public  land  States. — Nearly  twenty-three  and 
a half  millions  acres  granted  to  ])ublicland  States  for  railroads. — 
The  share  of  Illinois. — Teriitoi'ies  governed  from  Washington 
city,  and  e.Kpenses  of  government  paid  by  the  people  of  all  the 
States. — Effect  of  this  paternalism  on  the  dwellers  in  the  Ter- 
ritories. ^ Since  1861  revelry  in  evtravagance. — The  act  of  1864 
authorizing  less  than  29.000  people  in  Nebraska  to  form  a State 
Constitution.— It  granted  them,  per  capita.  98  acres  of  land 
an<l  $117  m money. — 700.000  acres  donated  in  186.5  to  5 States  in 
the  Northwest  for  canals. — Nearly  two  luindi  ed  millions  acres 
granted  between  1861  and  1871  for  railroads  and  wagon  roads  in 
the  Northwest. — 1.000.000  acres  of  arid  land  granted  to  each  of 
the  arid-land  States. — Irrigation. — Paciflo  Railroads. — Semina- 
ries. town  sites,  penitentiaries,  universities,  normal  .schools, 
asylums,  public  buildings,  reform  schools,  scientific  schools, 
etc  , etc. — Free  homesteads  to  Northerners,  foreigners,  and  ne- 
groes.— Every  pledge  made  to  the  States  violated. — Treasury 
receipts  from  sales  about  four-sevenths  of  the  cost  of  the  lands. 
A triple  crime. — The  jiurpose  of  the  criminals — Senator  Plumb’s 


speech. — The  prospect 120 

Note  1. — Personal  ambition  a factor  in  land  legislation 148 

Note  K. — The  baiie  of  party  spirit 148 

Note  L. — The  bargain  in  the  ordinance  for  the  government  of  the 

Northwest  territory  . . . . _ 144 

Note  M. — Government  of  Tei  ritories  unauthorized 146 

CHAPTER  XII. 

War  of  1812. — Conduct  of  New  England. — The  war  debt. — New 


England  gathered  into  her  coffers  everything  due  her,  and  re- 
fufsed  to  loan  to  the  administration. — No  power  to  emit  paper 
mone.y. — What  Jetfer.son  said. — Indifferent  success  of  efforts  to 
borrow  money. — Distress  of  the  Treasury. — Proposals  invited. — 
Loans  effected  at  a discount  of  nearly  14  per  cent.  — Some  of  the 
bond  purchasers. — A wealthy  slave-trader  of  Rhode  Island. — 
Depreciated  State  bank  bills  accepted. — New  Eirgland  responsi- 
ble for  the  large  unearned  gains  of  the  investors. — The  Hart- 
ford Convention  and  its  effect. — What  Carey  says  about  their 
conduct. — Ex-President  John  Adams. — The  ravings  of  the  New 
England  demagogues. — The  olive  branch  brought  forward  bj^ 
the  South.  —Where  the  money  of  the  Union  had  been  con- 


gested   147 

Note  N. — Conciliatory'  acts  of  the  South 1.5.5 


xxn 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Indirect  taxation. — What  Jean-Baptiste  Say  said. — Of  several 
methods  of  collecting  taxes  Congres.s  selected  the  tariff. — 
Why? — The  Whiskej^  Insurrection. — The  tax  could  be  wrapped 
up  m the  merchant’s  retail  price.— If  prices  were  high,  the  peo- 
ple would  not  know  who  was  responsible. — High  prices  induce 
people  in  the  United  States  to  engage  in  manufacturing. — The 
most  advantageous  situation  for  factories  in  New  England. — 
The  effect  of  non-importation  acts  and  the  war  of  1812. — The 
“ distress  ” of  the  manufacturers  after  the  war. — Three  years  of 
protection  adopted  in  1816. — Manufacturers  quartered  on  the 
agriculturists  secured  an  extension  of  privileges. — In  1824  the 
birth  of  many  " infants  ” provided  for. — Act  of  1828. — Struggle 
foi-  sectional  supremacy,  beginning  in  1820.  now  approaches  a 
crisis. — The  South  defied  in  1832. — Abolition  fanatics. — Union 
of  protected  interest  and  fanatics  to  exclude  the  South  from 
the  common  territory,  and  thereby  strengthen  the  North. — 
Speech  of  Thomas  B.  Reed. — The  South's  share  of  exports. — The 
South  paid,  per  capita,  more  than  six  ti  mes  as  m uch  as  the  North 
to  support  the  government. — Giving  the  North  the  benefit  of 
every  doubt,  it  was  more  than  twice  as  much. — The  disburse- 
ment of  these  taxes. — Manufacturers  enabled  under  this  system 
to  add  nearly  §25  to  every  §100  worth  of  their  products. — Their 
advocates  must  explain  how  they  realized  43  per  cent  under 
what  they  called  the  “free  trade  tariff’’  of  1846. — What  Mr. 
Benton  said  in  1828.— What  was  said  by  the  Representatives  of 
South  Carolina  in  1832. — The  compromise  tariff. — Even  this  in- 
sured the  manufacturer  $1.20  for  every  81.00  worth  of  his  prod- 
ucts.— The  pledge  of  the  protectionists  broken  in  1842. — Presi- 
dent Tyler’s  vetoes. — Triumph  of  low  tariff  advocates. — Even 
under  their  tariffs  the  manufacturer  could  sell  81-00  worth  of 
his  wares  for  from  §1.1.5  to  §1.24. — The  plundering  of  the  South 
for  the  eni’ichment  of  the  North. — Shoddy. — Justification  of 
tariff  robbery. — Britain  would  dictate  prices. — The  ••  home 
market ''  fiction  to  gull  the  farmer. — AVhen  competition  became 
sharp,  prices  would  fall  to  " pauper  labor  ” level. — The  oppon- 
ent of  protection  cruelly  disregardful  of  “the  mourning  of 
labor’’. — “ The  fo-eigner  pays  the  tax". — The  Southerner  who 
desires  to  buy  his  supplies  in  the  market  where  he  sells  most  of 
his  cotton  should  be  punished  for  his  lack  of  patriotism. — The 
effect  of  protection  on  the  fertility  of  foreign  wheat  fields. — 
Produce  everything  at  home,  and  be  independeht. — The  slave- 
holder who  paid  no  “wages ’’was  morally  bound  to  share  his 

profits  with  the  Northern  manufacturer  who  paid  wages 

Note  O.— Some  of  the  iniquities  of  the  McKinley  tariff 


CONTENTS. 


XXIH 


Note  P. — The  rates  of  the  act  of  1816  opposed  by  the  South _ 175 

Note  Q. — Calhoun’s  casting  vote  in  1827 175 

Note  R. — Manufacturers  dictated  rates  in  1828. 176 

Notes. — “Certainty  of  prices”  insured  to  manufacturers  at 

the  expense  of  other  classes... 176 

CHAPTER  XIV. 


Personal  phase  of  tariff  question.— Jackson  vs.  Calhoun. — 
Jackson  and  Webster  vs.  Calhoun  and  Hayne. — Opposition  to 
high  tariff  rates  developed  when  taxes  laid  for  pi-otection. — The 
“ American  system”. — Andrew  Jackson  supported  it. — But  the 
■ contest  over  it  was  mainly  between  the  North,  on  one  side,  and 
the  South,  on  the  other. — The  legislature  of  Georgia  condemned 
protection. — Scliemes  for“  internal  improvements”  denounced 
by  South  Carolina. — A committee  of  Bostonians  protested 
against  the  doctrine  that  we  should  buy  dear  domestic  goods 
instead  of  cheap  foreign  goods. — Hope  deferred. — In  1828 — an- 
other Presidential-election  year — protection  more  firmly  fasten- 
ed on  the  country. — Helplessness  of  the  South. — No  Constitu- 
tional remedy  against  acts  Constitutional  in  form  however  gross- 
ly unconstitutional  in  spirit. — Mr.  Drayton’s  effort  to  have  the 
act  declai’eits  real  purpose. — Action  of  North  Carolina.  Alabama, 
and  Virginia. — Jackson’s  inaugural  address  of  March  4th,  1829. 
recommended  a readjustment  of  rates. — Recommended  also  in 
his  annual  message  of  Decembers. — Nothing  done  in  that  session 
of  Congress. — A new  question  in  January,  1830. — Nullification 
and  secession. — Hayne  and  Webster. — Webster’s  argument. — 
What  Madison  said  about  the  “general  welfare”  clause.— 
Webster  vs.  Webster. — A personal  controversy. — The  cunning 
hand  of  Martin  Van  Buren. — What  Webster  said  of  Calhoun. — 
Jackson’s  argument. — Answered  by  Jackson  in  his  farewell  ad- 
dress.— The  “ Kitchen  Cabinet  ”. — In  December  1831,  the  Presi- 
dent recommended  a reduction  of  tariff  rates. — The  existing 
law  yielded  $27,000,000  while  the  treasuiy  needed  only  ,$15,000, - 
000. — Internal  imin-ovement  schemes  introduced  by  protection- 
ists to  avoid  a reduction  of  rates. — Jackson’s  inconsistency — How 
surpluses  are  disposed  of  in  later  years. — A more  objectionable 
tariff  act  passed,  and  approved  by  Jackson.— An  address  to 
their -constituents  by  the  South  Carolina  representatives. — The 
Northern  States  “ gained  more  than  they  lost  by  the  operations 
of  the  revenne  system”. — Nullification  proceedings  in  South 
Carolina. — Georgia’s  successful  resistance  to  the  execution  of  a 
treaty. — The  seventh  act  of  resistance  to  the  Federal  go-^ern- 
ment.- -John  Hancock,  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  set  the  ex- 
ample by  defying  the  Federal  judiciary.— No  moneyed  interest 


XXIV 


CONTENTS. 


alfected  by  previous  nullifications. — The  Pre-sident's  proclama- 
tion.— Remarkable  doctrines. — The  soundness  of  his  reason- 
ing.—Answered  himself  through  the  Washington  Globe. — Cal- 
houn vindicated  by  Jackson. — The  power  to  “ call  forth  the 
force  of  the  Union  against  any  member  of  the  Union"  delib- 
eratel3^  excluded  from  tlie  plan  of  the  Union. — The  whole  sub- 
ject before  Congress. — The  legislatures  of  many  States  express 
their  opinions. — Congress  determined  to  preserve  the  public 
peace  by  a compromise. — What  Mr.  Calhoun  said. — The  terms 
of  the  compromise. — Peace  preserved,  but  the  Constitution 
fatally  wounded : 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Sugar  and  rum  drawbacks. — Frauds  on  the  treasurv. — ••The 
wise  men  of  the  East  ”. — Cheap  vvhiskej'  transformed  into  rum. 
— Drawback  on  exported  rum  greater  than  revenue  derived 
from  imported  molasses. — The  lion’s  share  to  Mas.sachusetts. . . 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

How  Northern  school  hooks  deal  with  slavery.— A sample. — In- 
excusable ignorance  or  deliberate  misrepresentation. — The  right 
of  one  man  to  own  another  not  questioned  at  the  time  of  the 
first  settlements. — The  negro  and  the  Indian  were  not  ••men  ". 
— Battle  on  M_y.stic  river. — Cheating  the  AVest  Indian. — Fugitive 
slave  laws  in  New  England. — Massasoifs  grandson. — Two  distin- 
guished preachers. — Massac'husetts  engaged  in  the  slave  trade. 
— Number  of  slaves  in  Massachusetts. — Bought  and  sold  as 
other  property. — Cue  sold  at  auction  as  late  as  1793. — Law 
against  manumission. — Not  to  be  abroad  after  9 o'clock. — A 
new  breed  of  negroes. — Weaned  children  given  awaj’  like  pup- 
pies.—New  England's  moral  code. — Emanuel  Downing. — Smn- 
ner’s  ignorance. — The  FuTidamentals  or  Bodv  of  Liberties  of 
Massachusetts. — Slavery  never  abolished  in  Massachusetts  bj* 
law. — Her  Bill  of  Rights. — Supreme  Court. — Negro  slaves  less 
profitable  than  white  servants. — Numbers  in  the  Northern 
States. — George  III  and  slavery. — Sumner  and  Massachussetfs 
Supreme  Court. — A'irginia's  Bill  of  Rights. — The  ignorance  of 
Von  Holst,  and  his  “slavocracj’ ’’.— '•  The  Guinea  trade'’. 
—Felt’s  Salem. — Massachusetts  negroes  seut  to  warmer  climates 
and  sold. — •‘Social  equality’’. — The  hypocritical  howl. — Free 
negroes  excluded  from  Northern  States. — Could  be  whipped  in 
Massachusetts. — Economic  reasons  for  decaj'  of  slavery  in 
Northern  States. — Suppression  of  African  slave  trade. — Massa- 
chusetts not  foremost. — Roger  Sherman. — African  slave  trade 
kept  up  by  New  England  shippers  till  1862. — What  Mr.  Lowndes 
said: — Ineffectual  efforts  of  Fedei'al  authorities  to  suppress 


CONTENTS. 


XXV 


slave  ti'ade. — Messages  of  Presidents. — Slave  trade  made  piraoj’ 
in  1820. — 961  negroes  on  board  the  Boston  slaver  Nightingale 
in  1861,  and  “ expecting  more  ”. — Naval  War  Records. — The 


results  of  the  importations  shown  by  per  centage  of  increase. — 

American  Colonization  Society  a Southern  institution. 208 

Note  T. — Debate  between  SenatorsSunmer  and  Butler. — Seward’s 
admission 22.') 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Many  of  New  England’s  "great  moral  ideas"  mere  fictions. — The 
truth  of  history  demands  exposure  of  false  pretensions. — Why 
abolition  sentiment  was  checked  in  the  Southern  States. — 
Experience. — Discrimination  against  free  negroes  in  all  the 
States. — Indiana’s  Constitution. — Many  set  free  during  and  after 
the  Revolution. — In  North  Carolina  free  negroes  voted  till  1836. 
Public  charge. — Experience  in  Northern  States. — " Miserable 
remnant  of  former  -well-fed  slaves”. — "A  nuisance”. — Ohio’s 
exclusion. — Greater  kindness  and  indulgence  of  the  Soutlierner 
recognized  in  Uncle  Tom’s  Cabin. — Chattel  slavery  no  more 
offensive  to  Northern  than  to  Southern  .sensibilities. — The  vote 
to  prohibit  African  slave  trade. — Petition  from  Indiana  Terri- 
tory.— Prohibition  of  slavery  in  North-^vest  Territory  sup- 
ported unanimously  by  the  South. — Reports  of  John  Randolph 
and  Jesse  Franklin. — No  sectional  differences. — *•  Extension  of 
slavery  " defined. — Many  abolitionists  in  all  the  States  in  early 
days. — Increase  of  free  blacks  in  the  South. — Abolition  senti- 
ment in  the  South  checked  by, the  new  issue  of  sectional  con- 
trol of  the  Government. — False  pretences  of  Nortliern  free- 
soilers. — Their  real  object  acknowledged  in  Montgomery’s 
American  History. — Missouri  Compromise. — Free-soilers  not 
abolitionsts. — The  abolitionists  a discredited  faction. — Garrison. 
Tappan,  and  Lovejoy. — Wendell  Phillips. — Attorney-General 
James  T.  Austin. — The  abolitionists  avowed  disunionists. — 
Higginson,  the  patriot. — Hon.  Joseph  H.  Walker  makes  a reve- 
lation.— What  the  free-.soilers  said  as  late  as  1860. — Abolition 
societies  and  their  methods. — Jackson’s  message. — Servile  in- 
surrections.— Sincere  abolitionists  in  the  South  silenced. — 
William  Gaston. — Abolitionists  fuse  with  free-soilers. — 
Beecher’s  advice. — The  " campaign  liar  ”. — Jefferson  thrust  in- 
to the  ‘ ' pro-slavery  party  ” — The  uninformed  told  that  the  strug- 
gle for  sectional  control  was  a struggle  between  “liberty  and 
slavery”. — Mrs.  Stowe’s  sneer  at  the  Constitution. — “Great 
moral  ideas  ” displaced  the  Constitution. — The  slave-holder  a 
monster. — Slave-holders  paid  no  “wages”. — The  New  York 
World  on  wages  paid  in  the  North. — Tenement  hou.ses. — The 


XXVI 


CONTENTS. 


Journal  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  on  ‘'American  wages”. — The 


tramp 227 

Note  U. — The  effect  of  the  abolition  agitation  in  Virginia 246 

Note  V. — The  tramp.  246 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 


The  “slave-power”  fiction  the  crowing  falsehood  of  the  South’s 
traducers. — The  slave-trade  compromise. — The  ‘'three-fifths” 
compromise. — History  of  it. — Basis  of  taxation  and  representa- 
tion.—Greeley’s  fierce  assault  on  his  man  of  straw. — Butler’s 
little  Bill  of  Extras. — Webster  on  fugitives  from  service. — 
Greeley’s  ignorance. — The  purchase  of  Louisiana,  and  the 
motive. — “'Slavery  never  let  the  Noi'th  alone”. — Florida  com- 
pared to  Nebraska. — The  annexation  of  Texas. — History. — '*  Bad 
faith  ” of  the  “'  slave  power  ” in  regard  to  the  so-called  Missouri 
compromise. — No  power  delegated  to  Congress  to  meddle  with 
slavery  in  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United  States. — The 
treaty  with  France  forbade  such  meddling  in  the  Louisiana 
pui'chase. — History  of  the  so-called  compromise. — The' 'North  ” 
the  first  to  disregard  it. — All  the  falsehoods  supporting  the 
'‘slave-power”  fiction,  treated  with  indignant  silence  by  the 
South,  accepted  as  historj-  in  the  North. — But  there  was  one 
charge  the  enemies  of  the  South  never  made. — Her  hands  are 


clean 248 

Note  W. — First  movement  to  disrupt  the  Union  made  by  Massa- 
cliusetts - 261 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Is  there  exaggeration  in  the  preceding  chapters  ? — Benton’s  tes- 
timony.— Often  voted  for  what  his  judgement  condemned. — 
Federal  measures  to  tax  tire  South  for  the  benefit  of  the  North. 
— A convention  of  Southern  States. — Its  address  to  the  people. 
— Unconstitutional  working  of  the  Federal  government. — Rem- 
edy proposed  — It  was  tried,  butfailed. — Why? — Benton’s  rem- 
iniscences.— The  Union  should  be  preserved. — Worth  more  to 
the  North  than  to  the  South 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Causes  of  the  war  between  the  States.— The  firm  league  of  friend- 
ship broken. — Madison’s  delicate  truth. — Enumeration  of  viola- 
tions.— Lincoln  justified  secession. — Mutual  obligations  of  the 
States  trampled  on. — John  Brown. — Webster’s  appeal  to  the 
Northei'ii  people  to  “permit”  the  Southern  States  to  “ remain  ■ 
in  the  Union.— Slow,  stealthy,  and  misunderstood  result  of 
legislation  hostile  to  the  South.— Pervasive  impression.— Social 


CONTENTS. 


XXVII 


order  endangered — “Fire  eaters”. — Recollection  of  bitterness 
of  nullification  period. — The  last  feather  on  the  camel's  back. — 
Lincoln's  admission. — South  Carolina  seceded. — Her  reasons. — 
Sent  commissioners  to  Buchanan. — What  he  had  said  in  his 
message. — Other  grounds  of  confidence. — Hamilton’s  admission 
of  the  right  of  a State  to  secede. — Kentucky  and  Virginia  Reso- 
lutions.— Timothy  Pickering. — Tucker’s  Blackstone. — Josiah 
Quincy. — Hartford  Convention. — Judge  Rawle. — J.  Q.  Adams. 
Supreme  Court. — President  W.  H.  Harrison  on  “ our  Confeder- 
acy.”— Massachusetts  when  Texas  was  annexed. — Webster  at 
Capon  Springs. — B.F.  Wade. — Lippincott’s  Gazetteer. — Horace 
Greeley. — Buchanan  lacked  the  courage  of  his  convictions. — 
Crittenden  proposition. — Peace  Congress. — The  worth  of  the 
Union  without  “a  little  blood-letting”. — A Southern  Unionist 
turned  secessionist. — Other  Southern  States  seceded. — Confed- 
erate States  of  America.— They  sent  commissioners  to  Washing- 
ton.— Friendly  relations  sought. — Provisional  government  — 
Permanent  Constitution. — This  Constitution  baselj"  misrepre- 
sented to  the  ignorant  and  the  prejudiced. — Mr.  Lincoln  inaugu- 
rated five  days  before  this  Constitution  adopted. — His  inaugural 
address. — Property  “belonging  to  the  government”. — Refused 
to  assemble  the  Congress. — A declaration  of  war. — The  title  of 
“ the  Government  ” to  the  forts,  etc.  in  Charleston  Harbor — No 
money  ever  paid  to  the  State  for  her  Revolutionary  forts. — No 
legal  right  of  ownership  even  in  the  United  States  before  seces- 
sion.— They  were  held  by  the  sufferance  of  the  owner. — Mr. 
Lincoln's  determination  to  drive  out  the  owner  the  casus 
belli. — Waged  war  against  the  Confederate  States. — His  Con- 
gress refused  to  sanction  his  usurpations. — Wilson’s  resolution, 
and  the  action  of  his  party  friends. — Lyman  Trumbull’s  respect 
for  his  oath. — The  language  and  the  contents  of  the  resolution. 
—Pryor’s  resolution,  and  the  counse  of  Messrs.  Logan.  McCler- 
nand,  and  Sickles. — Logan's  speech  denouncing  the  Northern 
fanatics. — Northern  newspapers  criticised  Lincoln’s  position, 
and  justified  secession, — Gen.  Joseph  Lane  exposed  the  decep- 
tions of  the  revolutionists. — Soon  all  cool  reason  was  silenced. 
--Mendacious  fanatics  rushed  to  the  front  as  leaders  of  the  peo- 
ple.— Logan.  McClernand.  and  Sickles  in  the  ranks  of  tlie  usur- 
pers.— Greeley  followed  them. — The  “lower  depth”  to  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  sunk  in  his  Gettyburg  address. — Patriotism  and 
hatred  of  the  South  undistinguishable. — Death  and  destruc- 
tion.— Reports  of  General  Sherman  and  Kilpatrick  of  their 
vandalism  and  pillage  in  Georgia.— A district  larger  than  Ver- 
mont laid  waste. — $100,000,000  of  property  destroyed  or  carried 
North. — Thanks  of  Grant  and  Lincoln. — Public  sentiment  in 


XXVIII 


CONTENTS. 


the  North  in  1898. — Crimes  committed  by  the  black  and  white 
fiends  who  disgraced  the  Federal  uniform. — The  cost  of  the  war. 
— The  South  compelled  to  pay  a part  of  the  cost  of  its  own  sub- 
jugation.— How  much  the  Southern  people  had  paid  up  to  1894. 
— Eleven  times  as  grievious  as  the  burden  laid  on  France  by 
Germany. — The  cost  of  what  the  victorious  usurpers  inflicted 
on  the  South  as  what  the}'  called  "legitimate  results"  of  the 
war  incalculable. — The  cost  of  the  bonds.— The  clear  loss  in 
the  sale  of  them. — The  South's  burden  growing  instead  of  dimin- 
ishing.— Objectionable  Federal  officers  appointed  in  the  South. 
— The  Union  of  the  Constitution  destroyed. — The  Southern 
States  conquered  provinces. — Reconstruction  and  destruction. — 


All  this  was  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  "our  free  institutions."  287 
Note  X. — Northern  approval  of  John  Brown's  crimes. — Governor 

Andrew  and  " a young  merchant  of  Boston.'' 804 

Note  Y. — The  language  of  imijerialism. — " The  Government ''  in- 
stead of  " The  United  States." 804 

Note  Z. — The  victims  of  subjugation. — The  patience  and  fidelity 

of  the  Confederate  .soldier ... 80S 

Note  Aa. — Military  despotism,  and  "reconstruction  outrages.'' — 

Extracts  from  military  orders • 800 


CHAPTER  XXL 

The  preservation  of  slaver}'  not  among  the  objects  of  secession. — 
Charles  Bancroft's  admission. — What  was  said  by  the  platform 
on  which  Lincoln  was  elected. — His  inaugural  address. — He  re- 
voked Freemont's  abolition  proclamation. — Gen.  J.  H.  Lane's 
letter. — Ddworth's  report. — Lincoln  revoked  Hunter's  order. — 
Lincoln  compelled  to  yield  to  the  demands  of  the  fanatics. — 
Governor  Andrew's  letter. — Lincoln  pi-oposed  to  liberate  the 
slaves  of  " rebels ''  only. — Subjugated  States  and  parts  of  States 
excepted. — Remarkable  doctrines  of  his  proclamation. — Joseph 
Holt  on  liberating  slaves. — Dealing  with  the  race  (juestion  since 
the  war. — To  punish  and  degrade  the  Southern  whites  the  only 
object. — In  1867  ballots  placed  in  the  liands  of  the  negroes  of  the 
South,  but  not  of  the  District  of  Columbia. — The  jewel  of  con- 
sistency forced  the  radicals  to  enfranchise  whites  and  negroes 
in  that  District  in  1871. — State  and  United  States  offices  denied 
to  the  negro  in  the  North. — What  President  Johnson  said  of  the 
usurpers. — Testimony  of  Judge  Ewart,  a Southern  man  with 
Northern  principles. — How  the  negro  fares  in  New  England. — 
“Free  citizens"  of  Alabama  denied  the  privilege  of  laboring 
in  Illinois. — Testimony  of  Zion's  Herald. — Apology  of  Provi- 


CONTENTS. 


XXIX 


dence  Journal. — Falsehoods  about  compensation  to  slave-hold- 
ers   311 

Note  Ab. — The  fiction  about  compensating  slave-holders 319 

Note  Ac. — Election  laws. — Extract  from  a speech  of  the  author, 

APPENDIX. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion, and  the  Constitution 322 


SOUTH  AGAINST  NORTH 


OHAPTEE  I. 

FALSE  DEFINITIONS  THE  CHIEF  SUPPORT  OF  THE  FALSE 
DOCTRINES  WHICH  DESTROYED  THE  PEACE  OF  THE 
UNION. 

“ Contempomnea  expositio  est  optima  et  fortisima  in  lege.''' 

Wliartoyi's  Legal  Maximii. 

If  we  carefully  examine  the  long  controversy  between 
the  two  sections  of  the  Federal  [Tnion  with  the  object 
of  satisfying  ourselves  as  to  the  validity  of  the  reason- 
ing, the  arguments,  and  the  appeals  to  the  intelligence 
of  the  people  relied  on  by  the  respective  disputants — 
disregarding  mere  appeals  to  self-interest  and  passion — 
we  shall  find  that  in  their  last  analysis  they  were  noth- 
ing but  differences  of  interpretation.  The  fundamental 
difference,  from  which  all  others  logically  resulted,  was 
about  the  significance  of  the  terms  employed  to  name 
or  describe  the  Colonies  and  their  inhabitants  after  the 
Ith  of  July,  1776.  One  class  of  politicians  maintained 
that  each  one  of  the  States  was  an  independent  sover- 
eignty; that  the  Federal  Government  was  nothing  more 
than  an  agent  of  the  States,  created  by  them  for  cer- 
tain well-defined  purposes;  and  that  whenever  this 
agent  usuri.ed  powers  not  granted  to  it  by  the  States, 
they  were  no  longer  hound  to  regard  it  as  their  agent ; 
and  that,  furthermore,  a violation  of  the  mutual  cove- 
nants of  the  States,  solemnly  ‘‘  nominated  in  the  bond,” 
would  absolve  an  injured  State  from  its  obligations  as 
a member  of  the  Confederacy.  The  opposing  school  of 


' Contemporaneous  exposition  is  best  and  strongest  in  law. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


politicians  denied  the  sovereignty  of  each  State ; insisted 
that  “ the  people  of  America  ” united  themselves  in  a 
social  compact  without  regard  to  State  lines,  that  they, 
as  “ one  people,”  organized  a “ National  Government  ” 
to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  whole  people,  and  ‘‘  local  ” 
governments  to  which  were  entrusted  local  interests — 
in  short,  that  the  “ National  Government”  represent- 
ing the  sovereignty  of  the  whole  people,  is  paramount 
to  the  local  or  State  governments. 

These  conflicting  views  led  to  deplorable  consequen- 
ces; and  since  it  is  important  that  we  should  he  able  to 
ascertain  where  the  responsibility  lay,  let  us  apply  the 
test  of  definition.  This  may  not  be  infallible,  but  it  is 
the  test  which  the  common  sense  of  mankind  has  de- 
cided to  be  ‘‘  best  and  strongest.” 

The  four  most  important  of  these  terms  are  ' 1)  State. 
(2)  sovereign,  (3)  citizen,  and  (-1)  nation. 


STATE. 

For  the  true  meaning  of  this  word,  when  applied  to 
communities  or  governments,  we  have  the  authority  of 
statesmen,  scholars,  historians,  jurists,  and  poets  who 
lived  and  wrote  during  the  seventeenth  and  the  eigh- 
teenth centimes,  including  the  formative  period  of  our 
Union.  Here  are  some  of  them; 

(o)  Lord  Bacon  (who  died  1326)  in  his  essay  *•  Gf 
Great  Place, " begins  thus;  “Men  in  great  place  are 
thrice  servants — servants  of  the  sovereign  or  State. '* 
etc. ; and  in  his  essay  “ Of  Seditions  and  Troubles  ” he 
says;  ” As  there  are  certain  hollow  bla.Ms  of  wind  and 
secret  swellings  of  the  seas  before  a tempest,  so  are 
there  in  States" ; and,  again,  “ Libels  and  licentious  dis- 
courses against  the  State,  when  they  are  frequent  and 
open ; and  in  like  sort  false  news,  often  running  up  and 
down,  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  State,  and  hastily  em- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


3 


braced,  are  amongst  the  signs  of  troubles.”  All  through 
his  writings  “State”  is  a synonym  for  the  highest  form 
of  an  organized  community. 

(6)  Dr.  Thomas  Fuller  (died  1661 ) is  quoted  thus  in 
Richardson’s  Dictionary  (under  “ State”):  “ The  word 
statesman  is  of  great  latitude,,  sometimes  signifying 
such  who  are  able  to  manage  offices  of  state,  though 
never  actually  called  thereto.” 

(c)  Sir  Matthew  Hale  (died  1676)  is  quoted  by  Black- 
stone  (first  chapter  of  his  fourth  book)  as  saying: 
“ When  offenses  grow  enormous,  frequent,  and  danger- 
ous to  a kingdom  or  State,”  etc. 

(d)  Boyer’s  French-English  and  English- French  Royal 

Dictionary,  published  in  x\msterdam  in  1727,  defines 
“State”  thus:  “(A  country  living  under  the  same  gov- 
ernment) etc.;  and,  again,  “(the  government  of 

a People  Living  under  the  Dominion  of  a Prince,  or  in 
a Commonwealth  I Etat,  Empire,  Souverainete,  ou  Re- 
pidMqued' 

(e)  David  Hume  (died  1775)  says  on  page  138  of  Vol- 
ume III  of  his  History  of  England:  “ Most  of  the  arts 
and  professions  in  a State  are  of  such  a nature,  that 
while  they  promote  the  interests  of  the  society,  they 
are  also  useful  or  agreeable  to  some  individual”;  and, 
again,  “ But  there  are  also  some  callings  which  though 
useful  and  even  necessary  in  a State,  bring  no  particu- 
lar advantage  or  pleasure  to  any  individual.”  All 
through  his  volumes  the  word  is  used  as  it  is  here. 

(/)  Sir  William  Blackstone  (died  1780)  says  in  the 
chapter  already  referred  to,  that  a knowledge  of  the 
criminal  law  “ is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  every  in- 
dividual in  the  State”  ; that  the  law  and  its  administra- 
tion “may  be  modified,  narrowed,  or  enlarged  accord- 
ing to  the  local  or  occasional  necessities  of  the  State”;: 
and  that  “ sanguinary  laws  are  a bad  symptom  of  the 
distemper  of  any  State.” 


i 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


ig)  Adam  Smith  (died  1790)  says  in  his  Wealth  of 
Nations,  Volume  II,  page  62:  “In  the  plentj^  of  good 
laud  the  European  colonies  established  in  America  and 
the  West  Indies  resemble  and  even  greatly  surpass 
those  of  ancient  Greece.  In  their  dependency  upon  the 
mother  State  they  resemble  those  of  ancient  Rome.” 
(/i)  And  Sir  William  Jones  (died  1794-)  wrote; 

“What  constitutes  a state? 

Not  high-raised  battlements  or  labored  mound. 

Thick  wall  or  moated  gate ; 

Not  cities  proud,  witli  spires  and  turrets  crowned  ; 

Not  bays  and  broad-armed  ports, 

Where,  laughing  at  the  storm,  rich  navies  ride : 

Not  starred  and  spangled  courts, 

Where  low-bi'o^ved  baseness  wafts  perfume  to  pride. 

No  ! 3fen — high-minded  men. 

* * ^ * :i: 

These  constitute  a state ; 

And  sovereign  law,  that  state's  collected  will. 

O’er  thrones  and  globes  elate 
Sits  empress,”  etc. 

It  is  beyond  dispute,  therefore,  th.at  iu  1776  “State," 
whether  applied  to  a people  or  to  their  government, 
was  a general  term,  while  “kingdom,”  “empire.” 
“republic,”  and  “commonwealth"  were  specific  terms, 
denoting  sources  of  political  power.  It  was  a more  com- 
prehensive term  than  either  of  these.  It  was  so  under- 
stood by  the  statesmen  who  put  “ the  State  of  Great 
Britain”  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence;  it  was  so 
understood  by  the  Colonies  when,  through  their  dele- 
gates in  the  Continental  Congress,  they  declared  them- 
selves to  be  “ free  and  independent  States  " ; it  was  so 
understood  by  their  delegates  when  they  set  forth  “ the 
necessity  which  constrains  them  i the  Colonies)  to  alter 
their  former  systems  (plural)  of  government”:  it  was 
so  understood  by  the  negotiators  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1783,  when  they  wrote: 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


5 


“His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said  United 
States,  viz:  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts- Bay,  Ehode 
Island  and  Providence  Plantations,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
to  be  free,  sovereign  and  independent  States”;  and, 
again,  when  they  penned  the  declaration;  “There  shall 
be  a firm  and  perpetual  peace  between  his  Britannic  Maj- 
esty and  the  said  States”;  it  was  so  understood  by 
Massachusetts  when  she  declared  herself  to  be  a “ free, 
sovereign,  and  independent  State,”  although  she  had 
adopted  “ Commonwealtli  ” as  her  distinctive  title;  it 
was  so  understood  by  the  Continental  Congress  when  it 
placed  this  second  Article  in  its  plan  of  union:  “ Each 
State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independ- 
ence,” etc.;  it  was  so  understood  by  the  same  body 
vt^hen  they  recognized  the  Congress  as  a Congress  of 
States — “the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled”;  it 
was  so  understood  by  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
when,  in  their  Constitution  of  17911,  they  declared: 
“ The  people  of  this  State  have  the  sole  and  exclusive 
right  of  governing  themselves  as  a free,  sovereign  and 
independent  State”  ; it  was  so  understood  by  the  people 
of  Vermont  when,  in  their  Constitution  of  1793,  they 
required  “ every  officer,  whether  judicial,  executive  or 
military,  in  authority  under  this  State,  before  he  enters 
upon  the  execution  of  his  office,  ” to  “ take  and  sub- 
scribe the  following  oath  or  affirmation  of  allegiance  to 
this  State,  unless  He  shall  produce  evidence  that  he  has 
before  taken  the  same,  ’ ’ etc. ; it  was  so  understood  by 
the  States  when  they  defined  “treason  against  a State,” 
and  their  delegates  provided  for  the  surrender  of  any 
“ person  charged  in  any  State  with  treason” ; it  was  so 
understood  by  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  when, 
using  a practically  synonymous  word  in  the  Thirteenth 


6 THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 

Article  of  the  Ordinance  for  the  Government  of  the 
Northwest  Territory,  they  said  (July  13,  1787,  while  the 
Constitutional  Convention  was  in  session):  “ And  for 
extending  the  fundamental  principles  of  civil  and  relig- 
ious lihei'ty,  which  form  the  basis  whereon  these  repub- 
lics,^ their  laws,  etc.,  are  erected,”  etc. ; it  was  so  un- 
derstood by  the  Convention  of  1787,  which  closed  its 
draft  of  the  Constitution  with  the  statement  that  it 
was  “ done  in  Convention  by  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  States  present”;  and  it  was  so  understood  by  the 
Congress  in  1791:,  when  in  framing  the  Eleventh  Amend- 
ment they  proposed  to  shield  the  States  against  suits 
prosecuted  by  ‘'citizens  or  subjects  of  any  foreign  State. " 

This  long  line  of  authorities  reaching  back  beyond 
1623,  can  leave  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  intelligent 
persons  that  each  one  of  the  States  was  regarded  by 
itself  and  by  the  other  States  as  an  independent  sover- 
eignty, possessing  all  the  rights,  powers  and  jurisdic- 
tions of  any  other  sovereignty;  that  it  could  form ‘‘ a 
firm  league  of  friendship”  with  any  or  all  of  the  other 
States,  or  refuse  to  do  so. 

When,  we  may  now  ask,  did  they  lose  their  character 
as  States  ? When  did  “State”  lose  its  proper  meaning  ? 
Was  it  done  by  one  act,  or  was  the  operation  gradual? 
The  answer  to  these  questions  is  that  it  was  never  done 
at  all  up  to  1861. 

The  claim  that  it  was  done  when  they  united  in  177H 
for  their  mutual  defense,  is  negatived  by  the  second 
Article  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  adopted  after- 
wards; and  the  assertion  that  it  was  done  by  the  first 
three  words  of  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution — “We. 
the  people  ” — is  disposed  of  by  the  declaration  that  the 

’A  “ republican  government  is  that  in  w'hieb  the  body,  or  only  a 
part  of  the  people,  is  possessed  of  the  supreme  power. " — ^Montes- 
quieu’s  Spirit  of  Laws,  Book  II,  Chapter  I. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAIKST  THE  NORTH. 


Constitution  was  to  be  “ between  the  States.”  Equally 
unfounded  is  the  claim  that  the  people  of  all  the  States 
were  consolidated  into  a Nation  because  the  Constitu- 
tion was  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  Treaties 
also  were  to  be  the  supremo  law  of  the  land;  and,  un- 
questionably, if  the  construction  of  the  ccnsolidatiouists 
were  correct,  both  parties  to  a treaty  would  be  sover- 
eigns over  the  States.  The  truth  is.  this  was  simply 
another  way  f)f  declaring,  as  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion did,  that  “ each  State  shall  abide  by  th''  determina- 
tions of  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  on  all 
questions  which  by  this  Confedci-ation  are  submitted  to 
them”  ; that  “the  Articles  of  this  Confederation  shall  be 
inviolably  observed  by  every  State”;  and  that  “ the 
Union  shall  be  perpetual.” 

SOVEREIGN. 

The  term  sovereign  is  properly  an  adjective,  being  a 
modern  form  of  the  ancient  Latin  word  supremus,  which 
we  translate  highest.  In  the  course  of  time  it  came  to 
be  used  also  as  a noun,  signifying  the  man  possessing 
the  supreme  or  highest  authority  in  a State.  This  was 
its  meaning  during  the  seventeenth  century.  It  was 
its  meaning  when  these  thirteen  Colonies  freed  them- 
selves from  British  rule.  And  it  is  its  meaning  to-day 
in  monarchical  governments. 

When,  however,  the  sovereignty  of  the  British  king 
was  successfully  renounced  by  these  Colonies,  the  new 
order  of  things  inevitably  led  to  some  confusion  of 
thought,  because,  strictly  speaking,  nobody  had  inher- 
ited the  sovereignty  of  the  king,  who,  as  to  them,  was 
dead.  Was  each  inhabitant  a sovereign?  Was  each 
State  a sovereign  ? Or  were  all  the  people  of  all  the 
States  a sovereign  ? Naturally  the  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions would  depend  on  the  answer  to  the  question. 


8 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  TPIE  NORTH. 


Whafc  had  become  of  the  allegiance  each  inhabitant  had 
owed  to  the  British  crown  ? Did  he  owe  anything  of 
the  sort  now ; and,  if  he  did,  to.  whom  ? 

This  question  was  easily  answered:  each  one  of  the 
Colonies,  after  active  hostilities  began  between  them 
and  the  British  Government,  and  more  than  a year  be- 
fore the  Declaration  of  Independence,  demanded  the 
allegiance  of  each  one  of  its  inhabitants,  and  in  default 
of  compliance  the  property  of  recusants  was  confiscated 
by  the  legislatures.’ 

This  was  done  in  every  one  of  the  States,  and  the 
right  was  denied  by  nobody  except  the  British  and  the 
Tories. 

Hence  it  followed  necessarily  that,  if  the  word  sov- 
ereignty was  at  all  admissible  in  the  new  nomenclature, 
it  belonged  to  each  State:  and,  accordingly,  in  all  the 
early  State  Constitutions,  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  the 
sovereignty  of  the  several  States  is  recognized  as  the 
logical  sequence  of  Independence. 

This  sovereignty  was  never  renounced,  or  delegated; 
or  surrendered  by  the  States;  they  delegated  powers,  ' 
jurisdictions,  etc.,  but  this  was  no  more  a delegation  of 
sovereignty  than  the  confeia  ing  of  powers  on  a tenant 
transforms  him  into  a landlord. - 

‘111  November  1777,  the  Legislature  of  North  Carolina,  in  session 
at  Newbern,  passed  an  act,  ‘'That  all  the  lands,  tenements,  etc., 
within  this  State,  and  all  and  every  right,  etc.,  of  which  any  pei’son 
was  seized  or  possessed,  or  to  which  any  person  had  title,  on  the  4th 
of  Jnlj'.  in  the  year  1776,  who  on  the  said  day  was  absent  from  this 
State,  and  every  part  of  the  United  States,  and  who  still  is  absent 
from  the  same;  or  who  hath  at  any  time  daring  the  present  icar 
attached  himself  to,  or  ailed  or  abetted  the  enemies  of  the  United 
States,  etc.,  shall  and  are  hereby  declared  to  be  confiscated  to  the 
use  of  this  State;  unless,’^  etc. — Laws  of  North  Carolina.  Potter. 
Taylor  and  Yancey's  Digest.  Volume  1.  page  366. 

'■‘By  an  apparent  oversight  the  Constitution  conferred  on  the  Su 
preme  Court  the  power  to  decide  suits  “between  a State  and  citizens 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


9 


CITIZEN. 

This  word  is  derived  from  city,  as  burgess  or  burgher 
is  from'  borough  or  burg,  but  for  some  reason,  unlike 
burgess,  it  was  in  the  course  of  time  applied  to  mem- 
bers of  any  community  or  body  politic,  and  became  the 
opposite  of  foreigner.  The  rights  and  the  duties  of  the 
citizen  depended  on  the  degree  of  civilization  attained 
to  by  his  community  and  the  nature  of  the  government, 
and  there  could  be  no  inference  from  the  word  itself  as 
to  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  the  person  to  whom 
it  was  applied,  whether  a man,  or  a woman,  or  a child. 

In  the  course  of  time  it  became  in  England  and  France 
the  equivalent  of  inhabitant,  as  the  lexicographers  in- 
form us,  and  as  we  may  infer  from  its  use  in  the  Bible 
where  it  is  found  in  four  places,  as  follows : 

1.  Luke  XV,  15:  “And  he  went  and  joined  himself  to 
a citizen  of  that  country  ” 

2.  Luke  xix,  IT:  “ But  his  citizens  hated  him,  and 
sent  a messenger  after  him,  saying,  VVe  will  not  have 
this  man  to  reign  over  us.” 

3.  Acts  xxi,  39:  “ But  Paul  said,  I am  a man  which 
am  a Jew  of  Tarsus,  a city  of  Cilicia,  a citizen  of  no 
mean  city.” 

T.  Ephesians  ii,  19:  “Now,  therefore,  ye  are  no  more 


of  another  State.”  Under  this  provision  a suit  was  instituted  against 
Massachusetts,  while  John  Hancock  was  Governor,  which  is  thus 
referred  to  in  Conrad’s  Lives  of  the  Signers,  etc.,  page  63. 

He  (Hancock)  did  not,  however,  in  favoring  a Confederate  Re 
public,  vindicate  with  less  scrupulous  vigilance  the  dignity  of  the  in- 
dividual States.  In  a suit  commenced  against  Massachusetts,  by  the 
Court  of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  was  summoned  upon  a writ, 
as  Governor,  to  answer  the  prosecution,  he  resisted  the  process,  and 
maintained  inviolate  the  sovereignty  of  the  Commonwealth.  A re 
eurrence  of  a similar  collision  of  authority  was,  in  consequence  of 
this  opposition,  prevented  by  an  amendment  (the  Eleventh)  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.” 


]()  THE  SOUTH  AC4AINST  THE  NORTH. 

strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow  citizens  with  the 
saints,  and  of  the  household  of  God.’* 

“ In  France,”  says  Alden’s  Cyclopoedia,  “ it  xienotes 
any  one  who  is  born  in  the  country,  or  naturalized  in  it. ' ' 

Such  was  the  meaning  of  this  term  in  our  Revolu- 
tionary period,  and  in  what  may  be  called  the  formative 
stages  of  a nomenclature  suited  to  our  new  and  untried 
conditions.' 

Hence  the  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  royal  and 
popular  governments  had  the  king  on  one  side  and  “the 
people”  on  the  other;  and  in  all  the  early  documents 
the  word  ” citizen  ” is  of  miuor  importance. 

Let  us  examine  some  of  them. 

1.  In  the  Mecklenburg  Declaration  of  Independence 
(May  20,  1775)  the  word  does  not  occur." 

2.  In  the  Mecklenburg  Resolves  ( May  31,  1775)  it  is 
not  found." 

3.  In  the  Declaration  of  Independence  iJulv  4.  1770) 
“ fellow  citizens  ” occurs  once,  “inhabitants”  twice, 
“ free  people  ” once,  and  “ the  people  " twice. 

4.  In  North  Carolina’s  Constitution  (1770)  “freemen'' 
appears  eight  times,  “the  people"  eight  times,  “inhah- 
itants”  five  times,  and  “free'  citizens"  once. 

5.  In  the  Articles  of  Confederation  (framed  1777)  the 

'There  was  an  attemj)t  to  give  a new  meaning  to  the  word  citizen 
in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  It  says:  ’0411  persons  born  or  nat 
uralized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof, 
are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  State  wherein  they  re 
side.” 

What  the  intention  was  is  not  clear;  and  there  was  a serious  over 
sight,  it  the  word  was  intended  to  imply  some  new  relation  to  the 
Federal  CTOvernment,  since  it  excludes  people  who  live  in  the  Terri- 
tories or  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

"Wheeler’s  History  of  North  Carolina.  Volume  I.  page  69. 

Hbid.  255. 

*This  woi’d  "free”  shows  what  was  in  the  minds  of  the  " fathers." 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


n 


people  are  called  “free  inhabitants”  once,  “free  citi- 
zens ” once.  “ inhabitants  ” twice,  “ the  people”  twice, 
and  “ members  ” of  a State  once;  and,  as  if  it  was  in- 
tended to  leave  no  ground  for  misconception,  article  d 
says:  “The  free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these  States  * * 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  free 
citizens  in  the  several  States.” 

It  is  clear  enough,  therefore,  that  in  all  the  Constitu- 
tions the  “ fathers”  applied  the  word  citizen  to  every 
man,  woman  or  child  in  the  States,  whether  “ free  ” or 
not;  and  that  the  declaration  in  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment that  “all  persons  born  in  the  United  States  are 
citizens  thereof”  was  the  woik  of  a set  of  statesmen 
who  were  ignorant  of  the  first  principles  on  which  our 
Federal  system  was  founded. 

NATION. 

The  word  nation  comes  to  ns  from  the  Latin  language, 
and  its  etymological  meaning  is  family,  stock,  or  race. 
In  this  sense  it  was  properly  applied  to  the  Indian  tribes 
in  the  early  days,  as  the  Five  Nations,  the  Six  Na 
tions.  etc. 

In  the  course  of  time,  as  races  became  intermingled, 
the  w'ord  lost  its  proper  significance,  and  separate  com- 
munities were  called  nations,  just  as  “ jus  gentium  ” — 
the  law  or  right  of  families — now  means  the  law  of  na- 
tions; but  there  was  nothing  in  the  word  itself  indicat- 
ing the  nature  of  the  social  or  political  institutions  of 
the  people  it  was  applied  to. 

Hence,  when  these  Colonies  entered  into  united  resist- 
ance to  British  aggressions  or  threatened  aggressions, 
their  people  began  to  be  I’egarded  by  the  world  as  a na- 
tion; and  with  no  great  impropriety  they  have  been 
called  a nation  ever  since.  The  language  contained  no 
other  word  which  could  distinguish  them  from  “ for- 


12 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


eign  nations,”  as  it  contained  no  other  term  applicable 
to  the  Swiss,  who  for  ages  were  divided  into  independ- 
ent cantons,  united  together  for  no  purpose  hut  mutual 
defense.  ‘ 

In  the  treaty  of  amity  and  commerce  concluded  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  France,  in  1778,  “the  two 
parties”  are  called  “the  two  Nations”;  and  during  the 
period  of  the  Confederation  all  writers  and  speakers  ap- 
plied the  word  “nation  ” to  the  peoples  of  these  States, 
although  in  the  Articles  “ each  State  retained  its  free- 
dom, sovereignty,  and  independence”;  but  when  it 
was  proposed  to  put  “nation”  in  the  Constitution,  “the 
fathers”  scented  danger,  and  the  proposition  was  re- 
jected. In  the  progress  of  events,  however,  as  the  neces- 
sity arose  for  justifying  some  intended  or  actual  infringe- 
ment of  the  rights  of  certain  classes  or  sections  of  fhe 
people,  it  began  to  be  held  that  since  the  people  of  these 
States  are  a nation,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  minority  to 
submit  to  the  will  of  the  majority;  and  after  awhile  a 
majority  of  the  “ nation  ” — spelled  then  with  a capital 
N — became  thoroughly  indoctrinated  in  this  unfounded 
construction  of  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion. The  ignorance  of  the  people  was  taken  advantage 
of;  such  a fact  as  that  Nevada  has  as  much  control  over 
legislation  as  New  York,  and,  in  the  event  of  a failure 
of  the  electors  to  choose  a President,  an  equal  voice  in 
the  election  of  that  officer,  was  carefully  hidden  from 
the  people;  and  at  last  the  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment became,  in  their  eyes,  as  national  as  that  of 
Great  Britain.  But  the  mischief  did  not  stop  here:  the 

'Mr.  .Jefferson.  February  8,  1786,  wrote  to  Mr.  Madison:  " The  pol- 
itics of  Europe  render  it  indispensably  necessary  that  with  respect 
to  everything  extei’nal  we  be  one  nation  only,  firmly  hooped  to- 
gether. Interior  government  is  what  each  State  should  keep  to 
itself.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


13 


Northern  States  became  the  Nation  after  the  war  of 
Secession  commenced.  It  is  a familiar  sight  to  see  in  a 
newspaper  published  in  one  of  them  the  statement  that 
when  Sumter  was  fired  on  “ the  Nation  flew  to  arms.” 
It  appeared  in  the  New  York  World  as  late  as  the  last 
week  in  February,  1898. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  requiring  or  em- 
powering a majority  of  the  “nation”  to  elect  or  control 
any  department  or  officer  of  the  Governmeut.  Mr.  Lin- 
coln was  chosen  by  39  per  cent  of  the  aggregate  popular 
votes  of  the  States;  it  is  easily  possible  for  a majority 
of  the  Senators  to  represent  a minority  of  the  whole 
people;  a majority  of  the  Representatives  can  be  elected 
by  a minority ; and  the  J udges  of  the  Supreme  and  other 
courts  may  be  appointed  by  a minority  President  and 
confirmed  by  a minority  Senate.' 

On  the  solid  foundation  of  these  definitions  a body  of 
political  doctrines  was  erected  which  can  never  be  demol- 
ished, and  they  were  never  attacked  by  any  respectable 
party  until  it  became  necessary  to  defend  encroachments 
on  the  rights  of  certain  States.  In  the  course  of  time 
there  was  a union  of  all  the  interests  which  had  been 
quartered  on  the  people,  and  of  others  which  hoped  to 
be  so  quartered,  and  also  of  ignorant  and  fanatical  re- 
formers who  proposed  to  use  the  machinery  of  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  further  their  schemes;  and  by  the 


Uf  the  reader  will  turn  to  the  census  tables  he  will  find  that  there 
are  28  States,  including  the  “mining  camps,’’  whose  aggregate  pop- 
ulation is  11,597,263,  or  about  18  per  cent  of  the  total  population  of 
the  States.  These  States  send  46  Senators — a majority  of  two — to 
the  Congress ; and,  if  political  parties  were  nearly  equal  in  strength 
in  these  States,  their  Senators  might  represent  less  than  10  per  cent 
of  the  population  of  the  “Nation.”  And  he  will  also  see  that  the 
aggregate  population  of  Montana,  Wyoming,  Nevada  and  Idaho  is 
less  than  half  (about  42  per  cent)  of  the  population  of  West  Virginia, 
although  they  have  as  many  (four)  Representatives  in  Congress  as 
that  State  has. 


1-i  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

assistance  of  demagogues,  a venal  press,  and  honest  but 
misinformed  friends  of  the  Union,  they  succeeded  in 
establishing  a new  and  powerful  school  of  politicians 
who  denied  the  truth  of  History,  instilled  vicious  doc- 
trines into  the  minds  of  the  people,  and  prepared  the 
way  for  the  war  between  the  sections. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


IT) 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  UNION  OF  THE  STATES— ITS  OBJECTS,  CONDITIONS  AND 
LIMITATIONS. 

Having  defined  the  terms  which  will  constantly  recnr 
in  our  discussion,  the  object  in  view  demands  as  a next 
step  a clear  understanding  of  the  relations  of  the  States 
to  each  other  after  they  had  entered  into  a Union,  the 
extent  and  the  limitations  of  the  powers  they  conferred 
on  any  department  or  officer  of  the  Government  which 
they  established,  and  of  the  duties  or  mutual  obliga- 
tions they  severally  imposed  on  themselves. 

Obviously  the  opinions  and  purposes  of  individuals, 
which  change  as  knovvdedge  expands  and  experience 
enlarges,  deserve  no  place  in  the  solution  of  such  a prob- 
lem as  this;  our  only  trustworthy  guide  is  the  action  of 
each  Colony  in  its  oven  legislative  assembly,  or  through 
its  Representatives  in  the  Continental  Congress,  and, 
after  it  became  a State,  through  its  delegates  in  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation,  in  the  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  in  its  own  Convention  called  to  con- 
sider the  new  Constitution. 

No  argument  is  needed  to  prove  that,  if  the  people  of 
any  State  were  induced  to  adopt  the  Constitution  by 
misrepresentations  of  the  functions  of  the  Government 
to  be  established  and  the  scope  of  its  powers,  a fraud 
was  practiced  on  them  ; nor  was  there  any  fraud.  The 
objects  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  sate- 
guards  against  usurpation  wei’e  honestly  and  truthfully 
presented  to  the  people  of  the  several  States  hy  the 
ablest  statesmen  in  all  of  them,  each  article,  section  and 
clause  of  the  instrument  being  explained  according  to 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  words  and  the  accepted 
canons  of  interpretation.  And,  for  greater  security  to 


16 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  States  and  their  respective  peoples,  since  experience 
had  taught  mankind  that  goveruiug  bodies  are  prone  to 
exercise  powers  not  belonging  to  them,  a widespread 
demand  led  to  such  amendments  as  were  thought  to 
remove  all  danger.  ‘ 

The  Convention  which  met  in  Philadelphia  on  May  25. 
1787,  composed  of  delegates  from  all  the  States  except 
New  Hampshire.  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut  and  Maryland 
(though  delegates  from  all  of  these  except  Rhode  Island 
appeared  in  a month  or  twoi,  and  closed  its  labors  on 
the  17th  of  September  following,  after  uearly  four 
months  of  anxious  and  .sometimes  almost  hopeless 
efforts  to  compromise  the  coiiflicting  interests  of  States 
and  groups  of  States,  and  agree  upon  a plan  which  would 
probably  be  ratified  by  the  States,  transmitted  to  the 
Congress  of  the  Confederation  the  draft  of  a Constitu- 
tion to  be  submitted  to  Conventions  to  be  called  in  the 
several  States  by  their  Legislatures  at  the  request  of  the 
Congress. 

There  were  13  States  in  the  Confederation,  but  as 
there  were  apprehensions  that  some  of  them  might 
refuse  to  abandon  the  Confederation  aud  adopt  the  new 

^Mr.  Greeley,  in  his  efforts  to  find  excuses  for  the  conduct  of  his 
political  associates,  asserts  that  powers  were  granted  of  which  the 
people  were  kept  in  ignorance.  In  his  American  Conflict.  Volume 
II,  page  233.  he  says:  ‘•The  Constitution  was  framed  in  General 
Convention,  and  carried  in  the  several  State  Conventions,  by  the 
aid  of  adroit  and  politic  evasions  and  reserves  on  the  part  of  its 
framers  and  champions.  * * * Hence  the  reticence,  if  not  am- 
biguity, of  the  text  with  regard  to  what  has  recently  been  termed 
coercion,  or  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  subdue  by  arms 
the  forcible  resistance  of  a State,  or  of  several  States,  to  its  legiti 
mate  authority.  So  with  regard  to  slavery  as  well.’’  etc. 

From  which  view  of  the  Constitution,  if  it  were  correct,  two  de 
ductions  seem  unavoidable : 

1.  The  Revolutionary  war  was  a mistake;  and 

3.  The  ratitication  of  the  Constitution,  secured  by  fraud,  is  not 
binding  on  any  State. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


17 


scheme  of  government,  the  seventh  article  provided 
that  if  nine  States  should  adopt  it,  it  should  he  a “Con- 
stitution between  the  States  so  ratifying  the  same,”  the 
other  four  States  to  be  lett  to  take  care  of  themselves 
as  thej^  couldd 

At  the  ensuing  sessions  of  the  Legislatures,  all  of  them 
except  that  of  Rhode  Island  called  Conventions  to  con- 
sider the  ratification  of  the  new  Constitution.  Dela- 
ware ratified  it  on  the  7th  of  the  following  December, 
and  New  Hampshire  on  the  21st  of  June,  1788.  These 
were  the  first  and  the  last  of  the  necessary  nine,  but 
five  days  after  the  latter  date  Virginia  and  New  York 
acceded  to  the  new  Union.''  Thereupon  steps  were  taken 

’The  reader  should  note  that  “between”  is  used  here  for  the  obvi- 
ous reason  that  the  Constitution  was  to  be  of  the  nature  of  a com- 
pact between  (betwain  or  by  two)  two  parties,  namely,  each  State  as 
one  and  its  co-States  as  the  other.  And  the  consolidationist  may 
select  either  horn  of  the  dilemma:  If  it  was  intended  to  establish  a 
new  Union,  here  is  recognized  Ihe  right  of  nine  States  to  withdraw 
from  the  old  one ; if  it  was  intended  simply  to  amend  the  old  Union, 
the  right  of  four  States  to  withdraw  from  it  is  recognized. 

'^There  was  formidable  and  in  some  instances  violent  opposition  to 
the  ratification  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  Massachusetts  Conven- 
tion, composed  of  355  members,  after  a three  weeks  debate,  it  was 
carried  by  19  majority.  But  in  Pennsylvania  the  proceedings  were 
even  more  interesting,  as  w'e  gather  from  the  protest  of  the  oppo- 
nents of  the  Constitution,  as  given  on  page  29,  Volume  I,  second 
series,  Hildreth’s  History : “The  resolution  introduced  in  the  Assem- 
bly of  Pennsylvania  for  holding  that  Convention  (to  consider  the 
new  Constitution)  had  allowed  a period  of  only  10  days  within  which 
to  elect  the  members  of  it ; and  the  minority  in  the  Assembly  had 
been  able  to  find  no  other  means  of  preventing  this  precipitation, 
except  by  absenting  themselves,  and  so  depriving  the  House  of  a 
quorum.  But  the  majority  weie  not  to  be  so  thwarted;  and  some  of 
these  absentees  * * had  been  seized  by  a mob,  forcibly  dragged 

to  the  House,  and  there  held  in  their  seats,  while  the  quorum  so 
formed  gave  a formal  sanction  to  the  resolution.  It  was  further 
alleged  (by  the  protest)  that  of  70.000  legal  voters,  only  13,000  had 
actually  voted  for  members  of  the  Ratifying  Convention;  and  that 
the  majority  who  voted  for  ratification  had  been  elected  by  only 
6,b00  votes.”  2 


18 


THE  SOUTH  AGiilNST  THE  NORTH. 


to  hold  the  elections  required  by  the  new  order  of  things, 
and  to  inaugurate  the  Government. 

North  Carolina’s  Convention  refused  to  carry  the 
State  into  the  Union,  and  she  and  Rhode  Island  remained 
out  of  the  Union  until  sixteen  and  twenty-two  months, 
respectively,  after  the  ratifications  of  the  neces.sary  nine, 
their  objections  having  been  in  the  meantime  removed 
by  such  amendni'-nts  to  the  Constitution  as  were  thought 
to  be  effective  barriers  to  usurpation.’ 

In  the  public  mind  and  in  the  State  Conventions  there 
were  many  objections  to  the  proposed  Constitution 
founded  on  the  total  darkness  which  had  enveloped  the 
proceedings  of  the  Convention  which  framed  it. 

Some  of  the  erroneous  interpretations  which  the  pub- 
lication of  the  “ secret  proceedings’'  disposed  of.  have 
at  different  times  been  palmed  off  on  the  people  as  au- 
thoritative expositions.  For  example,  Patrick  Henry 
stoutly  opposed  the  ratification  by  Virginia,  and  de- 
manded CO  know-  why  it  said  “ We.  the  people'’  instead 
of  “We,  the  States.”  “If,”  he  continued,  “the  States 
be  not  the  agents  of  this  Compact,  it  must  be  one  great, 
consolidated.  National  Government  of  all  the  States." 
But  the  “secret  proceedings."  afterwards  published, 
showed  that  the  final  draft  of  the  Constitution,  sub- 
mitted to  the  Convention  August  *1  by  the  Committee 

^North  Carolina’s  objections  to  the  Constitution  may  be  seen  in 
the  following  resolution  passed  on  the  1st  of  August,  1788,  after  that 
instrument  had  been  defeated  by  a vote  of  184  tc  84: 

“ Resolved,  That  a declaration  of  rights,  asserting  and  securing 
from  encroachments  the  great  principles  of  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty, and  the  unalienable  rights  of  the  people,  together  with  amend- 
ments to  the  most  ambiguous  and  exceptionable  parts  of  the  said 
Constitution  of  government,  ought  to  be  laid  before  Congress  and 
the  Convention  of  the  States  that  shall  or  may  be  called  for  the 
purpose  of  amending  the  said  Constitution,  for  their  consideration, 
previous  to  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution  aforesaid  on  the  part 
of  the  State  of  North  Carolina.” — Elliot’s  Debates,  I,  331. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


19 


of  Five,  began  with  “ We,  the  people  of  the  States  of 
New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Ehocle  Island,”  etc., 
naming  all  the  thirteen  States;  and  that  the  names  of 
the  States  were  stricken  out  for  the  reason  that  it  was 
not  known  whether  all  the  States  would  ratify  it,  or 
how  many  more  States  would  ultimately  be  admitted 
into  the  Hnion.  But  this  “ We,  the  people”  does  duty 
to-day  in  bolstering  up  our -‘great  consolidated.  Na- 
tional Government.  ’ ’ 

Mr.  Greeley  quotes  Henry  with  much  satisfaction ; 
but,  like  Josh  Billings’s  lazy  man  hunting  for  a job  of 
work,  he  read  Elliott’s  Debates  “ with  a great  deal  of 
caution.”  If  he  had  turned  to  page  91  of  Volume  III — 
from  which  volume,  pages  22  and  24,  he  had  quoted 
Henry’s  words — he  would  have  found  this  answer  from 
Madison;  ‘‘I  can  say,  notwithstanding  what  the  honor- 
able gentleman  has  alleged  ''''  * Who  are  parties 

to  it  ? The  people — but  not  the  people  as  composing  ou^ 
great  body;  but  the  people  as  composing  thirteen  sov- 
ereignties. Were  it,  as  the  gentleman  asserts,  a consoli- 
dated government,  the  assent  of  a majority  of  the  peo- 
ple would  be  sufficient  for  its  establishment;  and  as  a 
majority  have  adopted  it  already,  the  remaining  States 
would  be  bound  by  the  act  of  the  majority,  even  if  they 
unanimously  reprobated  it,”  etc. 

But  this  is  anticipating. 

The  importance  of  the  subject  requires  that  the  reader 
shall  have  as  a preface  to  the  main  discussion  a brief 
history  of  the  relations  of  the  States  to  each  other  pre- 
vious to  the  formation  of  the  “ more  perfect  Union.” 

Exposed  to  dangers  from  Indians  and  other  enemies, 
the  British  Colonies  in  North  America  very  early  recog- 
nized the  duty  as  well  as  the  necessity  of  defending  each 
other;  and  (omitting  two  unimportant  confederacies) 
apiirehending  in  175d  that  the  war  between  England 


THE  SOUTT  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


t>0 

and  France  would  involve  the  British  and  French  Colo- 
nies in  North  America,  the  four  New  England  Colonies. 
New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  sent  Commis- 
sioners to  a Congress  at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  for  the  purpose 
of  negotiating  a treaty  of  peace  with  the  Indians  who, 
it  was  feared,  might  become  allies  of  the  French.  This 
was  done;  and  then  tlie  Congress  formulated  a scheme 
of  a general  government  of  all  the  British  Colonies. 
But  the  scheme  was  rejected  by  the  King  of  England 
and  by  every  one  of  the  Colonies. 

After  the  close  of  the  war  ' 1 76-1)  England  revived, 
amended,  and  instituted  measures  to  enforce  her  old  law 
of  1783  (levying  duties  on  sugar  and  molasses)  which 
New  England  shippers  and  traders  had  evaded,  and 
which  had  never  been  strictly  enforced,  her  avowed  ex- 
cuse being  that  these  Colonies  ought  to  contribute  to 
the  payment  of  her  large  war  debt  contracted  in  part 
for  the  defense  of  the  Colonies  against  the  French  and 
their  Indian  allies.' 

This  created  considerable  excitement  in  Boston,-  which 
was  the  largest  town  in  all  the  Colonies,  and  imported 

'The  following  extract  from  Smith’s  Wealth  of  Nations  (Vol.  II. 
p.  66),  the  first  edition  of  which  was  published  in  the  winter  of 
1775-’76,  will  give  us  light  on  this  as  well  as  some  other  matters: 
“The  expense  of  the  civil  establishment  of  Massachusetts  Bay  used 
to  be  about  eighteen  thousand  pounds  per  year:  that  of  New  Hamp- 
shire and  Rhode  Island  3,500  pounds  each  ; that  of  Nev  Jersey  1,200 
pounds ; that  of  Virginia  and  South  Carolina  8,000  pounds  each.  The 
civil  establishments  of  Nova  Scotia  and  Georgia  are  partly  sup- 
ported by  an  annual  grant  of  Parliament.  But  Novia  Scotia  pays, 
besides,  about  seven  thousand  pounds  a year  towards  the  public 
expenses  of  the  Colony:  and  Georgia  about  two  thousand  five  hun- 
dred pounds.  * * * The  most  important  part  of  the  expense  of 

government,  indeed,  that  of  defense  and  protection,  has  constantly 
fallen  upon  the  mother  country.” 

"Of  James  Otis,  the  most  active  of  Massachu.setts  patriots  in  de 
non iicing  and  agitating  against  this  law,  Alden's  Cyclopedia  says: 
“His  opposition  to  the  Royal  Government  developed  1761,  and  was 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


21 


more  molasses  than  all  the  other  seaport  towns  on  the 
continent;  but  outside  of  Massachusetts  there  was  no 
manifestation  of  serious  discontent. 

But  when  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed  in  I7d5,  impos- 
ing taxes  which  everybodT  could  see  and  feel,  there  was 
a storm  of  opposition  in  all  the  Colonies,  particularly  in 
the  towns  on  the  seacoast. 

Thereupon,  at  the  urgent  reqriest  of  Massachusetts, 
delegates  from  all  the  Colonies  except  Canada,  New 
Hampshire.  Virginia,  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  met 
in  a Congress  in  New  York  in  October,  1765.  This 
Congress  of  nine  Colonies  adopted  a declaration  of 
rights,  and  sent  an  address  to  the  King  and  a petition 
to  the  Parliam.ent,  asserting  the  right  of  all  the  Colo- 
nies to  be  “exempted  from  all  taxes  not  imposed  by 
their  consent'’— a very  remarkable  doctrine  in  the  light 
of  subsequent  events.* 

Societies  were  formed  here  and  there  to  arouse  the 
people  of  the  several  Colonies  against  the  claims  of  the 
British  Government,  and  the  merchants  of  Boston,  New' 
York  and  Philadelphia  agreed  with,  each  other  not  to 
buy  any  more  goods»from  Great  Britain  until  the  Stamp 
Act  should  be  repealed.^ 

claimed  by  some  to  have  been  greatly  intensified,  if  not  wholly 
caused,  by  the  refusal  of  Glovernor  Bernard  to  give  his  father  (James 
Otis,  Sr.),  the  position  of  Chief- Justice,  for  which  he  had  applied 
on  the  death  of  Sewall.” 

At  least  five  of  the  States  were  taxed  from  1824  to  1833  (as  will  be 
shown  in  another  chapter),  not  only  without  their  consent,  but  in 
spite  of  their  protests;  and  eleven  of  them  wei’e  taxed  for  seven 
years  (from  and  including  1865)  far  more  heavily  than  Great  Britain 
ever  proposed  to  tax  them,  not  only  without  their  consent,  but 
without  their  being  permitted  to  send  Representatives  to  either 
House  of  the  Congress;  and  among  the  burdens  imposed  on  them 
was  a Stamp  Act.” 

^See  Note  A. 


22 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


The  stamp  Act  was  repealed  the  next  year;  but  an 
act  v/as  passed  imposing  taxes  on  glass,  paper,  painters' 
colors,  and  tea,  on  their  importation  into  the  Colonies. 
It  was  approved  by  George  III  in  June,  ITHT. 

In  February,  1768,  the  Colonial  Legislature  of  Massa- 
chusetts sent  a circular  to  the  legislative  bodies  in  the 
other  Colonies,  asking  their  cooi3eration  in  efforts  to 
obtain  a redress  of  grievances.  ‘ This  circular  was  very 
offensive  to  the  British  Government,  and  a demand  for 
its  rescission  was  sent  over;  but  Massachusetts  refused 
to  rescind,  and  even  reaffirmed  its  doctrines  in  stronger 
language.  Then  ensued  a contest  between  that  Colony 
and  the  mother  country,  the  latter  sending  over  a body 
of  troops  to  suppress  the  “rebels."  The  excitement  in- 
creased; the  presence  of  the  British  troops  in  Boston 
added  to  the  causes  of  irritation,  and  both  sides  seemed 
willing  to  invite  an  open  rupture.  Oq  the  5th  of  March. 
1770,  a quarrel  arose  between  a military  guard  and  a 
number  of  the  townsfolk  who.  under  the  lead  of  Crispus 
Attucks,  a negro,  surrounded  the  guard  and  attacked  it 
“ with  clubs,  sticks  and  snow-balls  covering  stones." 
Being  dared  to  fire  by  the  mob,  six  of  the  soldiers  dis- 
charged their  muskets,  which  killed  three  of  the  crowd 
and  wounded  five  others.  The  Captain  and  eight  men 
were  brought  to  trial  for  murder,  John  Adams  and 
Josiah  Quincy  defending  them.  All  were  acquitted  ex- 
cept two.  who  were  con\ucted  of  manslaughter.  These 


'John  Hancock,  one  of  the  wealthiest  merchants  and  ship-owners 
in  Boston,  was  one  of  those  who  evaded  these  taxes.  His  vessel. 
Liberty,  was  seized  by  the  Royal  Commissioners  of  Customs  in  1768 
for  violations  of  the  law;  and  the  seizm-e  was  followed  by  a riot. 
The  officers  were  beaten  with  clubs,  the  boat  of  the  Collector  was 
burnt  in  triumph,  and  the  houses  of  some  of  the  most  conspicuous 
adherents  of  the  Government  were  razed  to  the  ground.  From  these 
events  Hancock  gained  great  popularity,  and  easily  came  to  the 
front  of  Massachusetts  patriots. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


23 


praying  the  benefit  of  clergy  were  branded  with  hot 
irons,  and  dismissed.  ‘ 

But  this  “ Boston  massacre”  served  the  purpose  of 
still  further  inflaming  the  passions  of  the  people  against 
the  mother  country.^ 

About  the  same  time  a conciliatory  measure  was 
passed  by  the  Parliament  repealing  all  the  taxes  im- 
posed by  the  Act  of  1767  except  that  on  tea.  But  this 
was  not  conciliatory  enough,  and  an  act  was  passed  in 
1773  permitting  the  East  India  Company  to  carry  their 
tea  into  the  Colonies  and  undersell  the  smugglers  of 
Dutch  tea.®  All  export  taxes  and  other  restrictions 
were  removed  except  a duty  of  three  pence  per  pound 
to  be  paid  in  the  port  of  entry,  which  was  considerably 

'When  Massachusetts  invaders  fired  on  and  killed  some  of  the  peo- 
j)le  of  Baltimore,  April  19,  1861,  they  were  not  branded  or  even 
tried. 

Ht  would  be  grossly  unjust  to  the  Irishmen  and  the  children  of 
Irishmen'  who  dwelt  in  the  Colonies,  particularly  those  of  the  South, 
if  we  fmled  to  recognize  the  part  they  played  in  uniting  t he  Southern 
Colonies  with  New  England,  and  in  waging  the  war.  It  would  be 
a pleasant  task  to  search  the  records  and  gather  up  a list  of  the  ad- 
vocates of  independence,  at  the  head  of  which  would  stand  the 
names  of  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,  Patrick  Henry,  Hugh 
Williamson,  Janies  Moore,  Thomas  Ijynch,  Edward  Rutledge,  and 
others ; but  we  must  forego  that  pleasure,  and  be  satisfied  with 
what  may  be  considered  competent  evidence  of  Irish  devotion  to  the 
cause  of  independence.  Joseph  Galloway,  Speaker  of  the  Pennsyl- 
vania House  of  Assembly,  at  the  beginning  of  the  troubles,  refused 
to  join  in  measures  of  resistance,  and  in  October,  1778,  he  left  the 
States  and  went  to  England.  There  he  was  examined  by  a Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Commons,  and,  when  asked  who  composed 
the  armies  of  the  Continental  establishment,  he  answered:  “The 
names  and  places  of  their  nativity  being  taken  down,  I can  answer 
the  question  with  precision.  There  were  scarcely  one-fourth  natives 
of  America— about  one  half  Irish;  the  other  fourth  were  English 
and  Scotch.” — Dillon’s  Historical  Evidence  on  Hie  Origin  and  Na- 
ture of  the  Government  of  the  U.  S.  (New  York,  1871),  p.  56.  (See 
also  North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  IX,  1,246.) 

®Nine-tenths  of  all  the  tea  they  imported  was  smuggled  from  Hol- 
land.—See  Montgomery’s  Amer.  Hist.  (Boston,  1894),  p.  154. 


24 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


below  the  taxes  paid  in  the  mother  country.  It  was 
hoped  that  this  measure  would  pacify  the  Colonies:  hut 
it  was  objected  to  not  only  in  the  Colonies,  but  by  the 
tea  merchants  of  England,  who  united  with  the  smug- 
glers in  appealing  to  the  patriotism  of  the  C'olonists  to 
refuse  to  buy  the  cheap  teas,  The  importation  of  this 
tea  was  resisted  in  the  principal  importing  cities,  nota- 
bly in  Boston,  where  the  smugglers  organized  a band  of 
“ Mohav/k  Indians  and  dumped  into  the  sea  about 
$100,000  worth  of  tea.' 

In  consequence  of  these  and  other  violent  proceed- 
ings the  Parliament  passed,  in  succession,  during  the 
next  seven  weeks,  beginning  with  March  23.  four  acts, 
which  w^ere  coraniented  on  as  follows  by  Alexander 
Elmsly,  one  of  North  Carolina’s  agents  in  London,  in  a 
letter  dated  May  IT,  1774:  ‘‘  By  the  first  (Boston  Port 
Bill)-  the  harbor  of  Boston  is  shut  up  till  a compensa- 
tion is  made  to  their  Indian  Company  for  their  tea.  and 
till  the  inhabitants  discover  an  inclination  to  submit  to 
the  revenue  laws,  after  which  the  King,  by  and  with 
the  advice  of  the  Privy  Council,  is  empowered  to  sus- 
pend the  effect  of  the  act.  " " * 

“ The  next  act  is  for  taking  away  the  charter  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bay;  hereafter  the  Council  are  to  be 
appointed  by  the  King,  as  in  the  Southern  Provinces. 

‘In  a letter  to  the  Earl  of  Dartmouth,  dated  New  York,  Novem- 
ber 4,  1774,  Josiah  Martin,  the  Royal  Governor  of  North  Carolina, 
advise.s  the  repeal  of  the  tea  tax,  and  gives  this  among  other  rea- 
sons: “ It  will  disappoint  the  views  of  the  smugglers  of  Dutch  tea 
who  have  made  monstrous  advantages  of  the  opposition  they  have 
industriously  excited  and  fomented  on  this  subject,  professing  to 
aim  by  these  means  at  the  repeal  of  the  Tax  Act,  which  they  cer- 
tainly intended  to  produce  a contrary  effect,  deprecating  in  their 
hearts  that  course  above  all  things  that  must  inevitably  destroy 
their  monopoly  of  that  commodity  and  all  its  concomitant  bene- 
fits.”— North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  IX,  1,085-86. 


^See  Note  B. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


25 


and  in  certain  cases  the  Governor  is  to  act  Tvithout  their 
consent  and  concurrence.  The  town  meetings,  except 
for  the  purpose  of  elections,  are  declared  unlawful,  and 
some  other  new  regulations  established. 

“ The  third  act  enables  the  Governors,  in  case  of  an 
indictment  preferred  against  any  officer  of  the  Crown, 
either  civil  or  military,  for  anything  by  him  done  in  the 
execution  of  his  office,  to  suspend  the  proceedings 
against  him  in  America,  and  to  send  him  home  for  trial 
in  England.  This  law.  I am  told,  the  officers  of  the 
army  insisted  on  for  fear  of  being  prosecuted  by  the 
civil  power,  either  as  principals  or  accessories  to  the 
death  of  any  person  killed  in  the  field  of  battle,  in  case 
things  should  come  to  that  extremity. 

“The  fourth  and  last  law  respects  quartering  the  sol- 
diery. I have  not  seen  it,  but  suppose  it  is  calculated 
to  obviate  in  future  the  construction  put  upon  the  old 
one,  by  the  people  of  Boston,  iu  their  town  meeting, 
viz,  that  Castle  William,  situated  three  miles  out  of 
town,  should  be  taken  to  bo  barracks  in  the  town,  and 
of  course  excluded  the  pretensions  of  the  army  to  quar- 
ters in  the  town,  even  though  the  purpose  of  sending 
soldiers  should  be  merely  on  account  of  the  commotions 
and  disturbances  in  the  town.”  ‘ 

When  the  people  of  Boston  heard  of  the  passage  of 
the  first  of  these  acts  they  were  greatly  excited;  and  a 
meeting  was  called  “to  consider  this  new  and  unexam- 
pled aggression.  It  was  there  voted  to  make  applica- 
tion to  the  other  Colonies  to  refuse  all  importations 
from  Great  Britain,  and  withhold  all  commercial  inter- 
course, as  the  most  probable  and  effectual  mode  to  pro- 
cure the  repeal  of  this  oppressive  law.  One  of  the  citi- 
zens was  despatched  to  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  for 


‘North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  IX,  1,000. 


26 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  views  of  the  people  of 
those  places  and  in  the  Colonies  farther  South. ^ A 
committee,  comprising  Samuel  Adams,  Dr.  AVarren, 
with  John  Adams  and  others  of  the  same  high  charac- 
ter, was  appointed  to  consider  what  farther  measures 
ought  to  be  adopted. 

“The  Governor  obliged  the  General  Court  < Legisla- 
ture) to  meet  at  Salem,  instead  of  Boston,  where  they 
proceeded,  after  a very  civil  address  to  him,  to  ask  for 
a day  of  general  fast  and  prayer.  This  his  Excellency 
refused.  But,  although  he  would  not  let  them  pray,  he 
could  not  prevent  them  from  adopting  a most  important 
measure,  namely,  that  of  choosing  five  delegates  to  a 
General  and  Continental  Congress;  and  of  giving  in- 
formation thereof  to  all  the  other  Colonies,  with  the 
request  that  they  would  appoint  deputies  for  the  same 
purpose.”  (See  Life  of  John  Adams  in  Lives  of  the 
Signers,  etc.  ) 

Much  sympathy  for  Massachusetts  was  manifested  in 
other  Colonies.  The  Assembly  of  Ahrginia  appointed 

'It  seems  that  Massachusetts  had  agents  travelling  through  the 
Southern  Colonies  before  this.  From  the  Memohs  of  Josiah  Quincy, 
Jr.,  we  learn  that  in  March  and  April,  1773,  he  visited  William  Hill, 
Esq.  (a  native  of  Boston),  a merchant  of  Bruns^vick,  N.  C.,  whom 
he  found  “ warmly  attached  to  the  cause  of  American  freedom''; 
breakfasted  with  Colonel  Dry,  the  Collector  of  Customs  at  Bruns- 
wick, whom  he  found  to  be  a “ friend  to  the  Regulators'' ; dined  in 
Wilmington  “with  Dr.  Cobham  with  a select  party";  dined  again 
Avith  Dr.  Cobham  “in  companj^  with  Harnett,  Hooper,  Burgwin, 
Dr.  Tucker,”  etc.;  “ chned  with  about  twenty  at  Mr.  Wilham 
Hooper’s”;  spent  the  night  with  Mr.  Cornehus  Harnett — “the  Sam- 
uel Adams  of  North  Carohna  (except  in  iioint  of  fortune)” — “Robert 
Howe,  Esq.,”  being  one  of  “ the  social  triumvirate’";  Avent  to  New 
Bern,  Bath  and  Edenton;  breakfasted  Avith  Colonel  Bancombe; 
and  sjAent  two  days  crossing  Albemarle  Sound  “in  company  with 
the  most  celebrated  lawyers  of  Edenton.” — (See  North  Carolina 
Colonial  Records,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  610  and  611.) 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


27 


the  1st  of  June  ( 1774)’  as  a day  of  “ fasting,  humilia- 
tion, and  prayer.”  “The  Royal  Governor  immediately 
dissolved  the  House  of  Burgesses ; w^hereupon  the  mem- 
bers resolved  themselves  into  a Committee,”  passed  res- 
olutions declaring  in  substance  that  “ the  cause  of  Bos- 
ton was  the  cause  of  all, ' ’ and  took  steps  to  induce  the 
other  Colonies  to  appoint  delegates  to  the  General  Con- 
gress, which  had  been  proposed  by  the  Bostonians. 

North  Carolina’s  first  Legislative  Assembly  elected  by 
the  people,  which  met  in  Newbern  August  25,  1774, 
while  declaring  the  allegiance  of  the  people  to  the  House 
of  Hanover,  denounced  the  Boston  Port  Bill  as  uncon- 
stitutional; approved  the  plan  for  a General  Congress 
of  the  Colonies  in  September,  and  appointed  delegates 
to  the  same.^ 

On  the  5th  of  September,  1774,  delegates  from  all  the 
Colonies  except  Canada  and  Georgia  met  in  Philadel- 
phia and  organized  the  first  Continental  Congress,  assum- 
ing the  style  of  the  Twelve  Luited  Colonies. 

The  first  act  of  this  bod}^  was  to  recognize  the  equality 
of  the  Colonies  by  agreeing  that  in  determining  any 
question  each  Colony  should  have  one  vote:  and  this 
equality  was  preserved  by  subsequent  Congresses,  by 
the  States  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and,  in 

^The  day  when  the  Boston  Port  Bill  was  to  go  into  effect. 

^Sympathy  for  Boston  was  not  confined  to  resolutions;  it  was 
manifested  in  a more  jiractical  way.  Provisions  and  other  necessa- 
ries were  sent  to  that  city  from  all  the  seaboard  towns  of  the  South- 
ern Colonies,  contributed  in  some  instances  by  counties  and  settle- 
ments far  removed  from  the  coast. — (See  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Records,  Vol.  IX,  pp.  1,017,  1,018,  1,033,  1,081,  1,116,  etc.). 

And  this  sympathy  inspired  the  Bostonians  to  consult  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  about  the  propriety  of  burning  the  town  in  ’‘order 
to  distress  the  military,”  taking  care  in  the  meantime  to  estimate 
“the  value  of  the  houses,  etc.,  in  order  to  raise  a general  contribu- 
tion for  the  loss  at  some  future  time.” — (See  North  Carolina  Colonial 
Recoi’ds,  Vol.  IX,  p.  1,082). 


28 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  Senate,  under  the  Constitution.  Without  it  coope- 
ration and  Union  would  have  been  impossible. 

Being  little  more  than  an  advisory  body,  each  delega- 
tion having  no  power  to  do  more  than  it  had  been  in- 
structed to  do  by  its  own  Colony,  it  appointed  commit- 
tees to  take  into  consideration  the  rights  and  grievances 
of  the  Colonies,  asserting  by  numerous  declaratory  re.so- 
lutions  what  were  deemed  to  be  the  inalienable  rights 
of  English  freemen;  pointed  out  to  the  people  of  the 
Colonies  the  dangers  which  threatened  those  rights: 
besought  them  to  renounce  commerce  with  Great  Britain 
as  the  most  effective  means  of  averting  those  dangers: 
and  advised  all  the  Colonies  to  send  delegates  to  a Gen- 
eral Congress,  to  be  held  in  the  same  place  in  May  of 
next  year. 

In  the  meantime  the  British  Govern ''•^eut,  mistaking 
the  temper  of  the  people  of  the  other  Colonies,  and  not 
realizing  that  “ the  cause  of  Boston  was  the  cause  of 
all,”  proceeded  to  other  acts  of  folly.  An  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, which  received  the  King’s  assent  March  1, 
restrained  “ the  trade  and  commerce  of  the  Provinces 
of  Massachusetts  Bay  and  New  Hampshire,  and  the 
Colonies  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island  and  Provi- 
dence Plantations  in  North  America,  to  Great  Britain, 
Ireland  and  the  Bi-itish  Islands  in  the  MMst  Indies." 
and  prohibited  “sucb  Provinces  and  Colonies  from  car- 
rying on  any  fishery  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  or 
other  places  therein  mentioned,  under  certain  conditions 
and  limitations.” 

This  act  not  only  affected  the  business  of  the  fisher- 
men, but  it  diminished  the  food  supplies  of  the  poor  of 
Boston,  and  would  have  produced  great  distress  in  the 
town  if  contributions  had  not  poured  into  it  from  other 
Colonies. 

There  was,  therefore,  a new  incentive  to  comply  with 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  39 

the  recommendation  of  the  Congress  of  the  preceding 
year;  and  accordingly  delegates  were  appointed,  and 
met  in  Philadelphia  in  May,  1775,  all  being  represented 
except  Canada  and  Georgia,  ‘ as  before,  although  dele- 
gates from  the  latter  arrived  in  July. 

The  powers  of  the  delegates  were  not  well  defined ; 
but  reconciliation  with  England  was  to  be  kept  steadily 
in  view.  On  the  day — April  5,  1775 — when  Messrs. 
Hooper,  Hewes  and  Caswell  were  reappointed  as  North 
Carolina’s  delegates,  they  said  in  an  address  to  the  Pro- 
vincial Convention:  ‘ One  motive  in  this  important 
measure,  viz,  a sacred  regard  for  the  rights  and  privi- 
leges of  British  America,  and  an  earnest  wish  to  bring 
about  a reconciliation  with  our  parent  State,  upon  terms 
Constitutional  and  honorable  to  both,  have  hitherto 
actuated  us.”  Previous  to  the  meeting  of  this  Con- 
gress open  hostilities  had  broken  out  between  Massa- 
chusetts and  Great  Britain  (which  probably  stimulated 
Georgia  to  active  cooperation),  the  battle  of  Lexington 
having  been  fought  a few  weeks  before.  The  news  of 
this  battle  spread  rapidly  and  created  intense  excite- 
ment. "Volunteers  from  the  adjoining  Colony  of  Connec- 
ticut and  from  what  afterwpu’ds  became  Vermont,  un- 
der the  leadership  of  Col.  Ethan  Allen,  seized  upon  the 
military  posts  of  Ticonderoga  and  Crown  Point,  both  on 
the  west  side  of  Lake  Champlain,  and  White  Hall  at  its 
southern  extremity.  The  capture  of  Ticonderoga  was 
effected  on  the  10th  of  May,  the  day  on  which  the  Con- 
gress met. 

Newr  England  had  now  passed  the  Rubicon;  a step 
h:ad  been  taken  which  imposed  on  the  other  Colonies 
the  necessity  of  choosing  whether  they  would  stand 
aloof  and  permit  her  to  be  crushed  by  Great  Britain,  or 
go  to  her  relief  with  men  and  money.  They  chose  the 


'See  Note  C. 


30 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


latter;  the  “cause  of  Boston”  had  bficome  iu  a new 
and  fearful  sense  “ the  cause  of  all.”  Their  delegates 
in  the  Congress  proclaimed  a declaration  of  the  reasons 
for  the  appeal  to  arms,  passed  a resolution  to  raise  20.- 
000  troops,  each  Colony  to  furnish  its  quota  on  an  agreed 
equitable  basis;  appointed,  on  the  nomination  of  Massa- 
chusetts. George  Washington,  of  Virginia,  to  be  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  all  the  Colonial  forces;'  and  made 
other  preparations  for  defending  the  rights  of  the  Colo- 
nies against  what  they  considered  unwarranted  aggres- 
sions, actual  or  threatened,  on  their  chartered  rights. 
“ We  have  not  raised  armies,”  they  declared,  “ with 
ambitious  designs  of  separating  from  Great  Britain  and 
establishing  independent  States.  We  fight  not  for  glory 
or  conquest.  * We  shall  lay  them  (arms)  down 

when  hostilities  shall  cease  on  the  part  of  the  aggres- 
sors, and  all  danger  of  their  being  renewed  shall  be 
removed,  and  not  before. 

But  revolutions  never  go  backward;  and,  in  the  light 
of  history,  this  declaration  of  the  representatives  of  the 
Colonies,  if  sustained  by  the  several  Colonies,  meant 
independence  or  subjugation.  It  was  not  so  regarded, 
however,  in  the  Colonies;  it  was  generally  expected  that 
the  British  Ministry  would  recede  from  their  measures 

'This  was  an  effective  piece  of  diploiuacy.  "The  delegates  from 
New  England  were  ijarticularly  pleased  with  his  election,  as  it  would 
tend  to  unite  the  Southern  Colonies  cordially  in  the  war.’’ — Am. 
ilil.  Biog.,  325.  But  it  was  very  offensive  to  the  New  England  ofiB 
cers  who  had  hitherto  commanded  in  their  military  operations.  Some 
of  them  refused  to  serve  under  "Continental  officers,"  notably  John 
Stark,  Seth  Warner,  Artemas  Ward,  and  Seth  Pomeroy. 

H)n  the  26th  of  April,  1775 — a week  after  the  battle  of  Lexington— 
the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts,  in  session  at  Watertown,  issued  an 
"Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Great  Britain."  which  contained  the 
following  passage:  "They”  (the  British  Ministry)  "have  not  yet  de- 
tached us  from  our  Royal  Sovereign ; we  profess  to  be  his  loyal  and 
dutiful  sub.iects.  ” — Dillon’s  Hist,  Evidence,  page  54. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


31 


of  aggression,  as  thej^  had  so  often  done  before.  Accord- 
ingly the  people  in  many  of  the  Colonies  were  attempt- 
ing. for  months  after  General  Washington  took  com- 
mand at  Boston,  to  bring  about  accommodations  with 
the  Royal  Governors.  In  New  Jersey  the  expectation 
of  a reconciliation  was  not  abandoned  even  as  late  as 
July  2,  1776,  when  her  new  frame  of  government  was 
adopted.' 

This  Congress  remained  in  session  several  months, 
and  the  delegates,  obeying  instructions  from  their  sev- 
eral Colonies,  declared,  July  I,  1776  ( though  New  York's 
assent  was  not  obtained  till  Jnly  9),  that  these  Colonies 
renounced  all  allegiance  to  the  British  sovereign;  and 
“ that  as  free  and  independent  States,  they  have  full 
power  to  levy  war,  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances, 
establish  commerce,  and  to  do  all  other  acts  and  things 
which  independent  States  may  of  right  do.’’'^ 

About  the  same  time  a plan  of  union  was  being  drafted 
by  a committee  which  had  been  appointed  early  in  June. 
The  result  of  their  labors  was  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion, which  were  submitted  November  15,  1777,  to  the 
several  State  Legislatures,  with  a request  for  instruc- 

^Sinee  Massachusetts  was  the  flrtT  Colony  to  resist  Great  Britain, 
it  would  be  natural  to  suppose  that  she  was  first  to  propose  inde- 
pendence; but  she  was  behind  the  Southern  Colonies,  North  Caro- 
lina taking  the  lead  on  April  12. 

Bancroft  obscures  this  disagreeable  truth  in  the  following  i^assage 
in  Volume  VIII,  page  449:  “Comprehensive  instructions  reaching 
the  question  of  independence  without  explicitly  using  the  word, 
had  been  given  by  Massachusetts  in  January.” 

^Samuel  Johnston,  President  of  the  North  Carolina  Assembly,  in 
a letter  to  Messrs.  Hooper,  Hewes  and  Penn,  dated  April  13,  177jS,  (a 
said:  “The  North  Carolina  Congress  have  likewise  taken  under 
consideration  that  part  of  your  letter  requiring  their  instructions 
with  respect  to  entering  into  foreign  alliances,  and  were  unanimous 
in  their  concurrence  with  the  enclosed  resolve,  confiding  entirely  in 
your  discretion  with  regard  to  the  exercise  of  the  power  with  which 
you  are  invested.” — North  Carolina  Colonial  Records,  X,  49^. 


32 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


tions  to  their  several  delegations  to  approve  and  sign 
them. 

They  proposed  in  the  preamble  to  establish  “a  Confed- 
eration and  perpetual  union  between  the  States  of  Xew 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Prov- 
idence Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Yorginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and  Georgia.'’  They 
were  also  translated  into  the  French  language  and 
sent  with  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  British  Prov- 
inces north  of  these  States,  the  eleventh  article  provid- 
ing- that  ‘'Canada  acceding  to  this  Confederation  and 
joining  in  the  measures  of  the  TJnited  States,  shall  be 
admitted  into,  and  entitled  to,  all  the  advantages  of  this 
Union,”  and  that  other  Colonies  might  be  admitted  by 
the  assent  of  nine  States. 

'_)n  the  9th  of  July,  1778,  the  Articles  were  signed  by 
the  delegates  from  the  New  England  States.  New  York, 
Yirginia  and  South  Carolina,  New  York’s  approval  be- 
ing on  the  condition  that  all  the  other  States  would 
approve.  The  delegates  from  New  Jersey,  Delaware  and 
Maryland  refused  to  sign  because  their  States  had  not 
so  instructed  them,  while  North  Carolina  and  Georgia 
were  not  represented.  In  the  course  of  ten  months, 
however,  all  the  States  except  Maryland  acceded  to  the 
Confederation.  She  stood  aloof  until  March  1,  1781, 
the  last  year  of  active  hostilities.  Practically,  there- 
fore, the  war  was  waged  under  the  Continental  Con- 
gress, which  was  little  more  than  an  advisory  body,  all 
really  effective  political  power  being  in  the  several  States. 
After  the  war  was  ended  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
designed  principally  as  the  Constitution  of  a military 
government,  were  found  uusuited  to  the  new  situation. 
The  excitement  of  the  v^^ar  period  and  the  necessity  for 
extra  exertion,  which  could  be  relied  on  as  inducements 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


33 


for  each  State  to  furnish  its  quota  of  requisitions  to  the 
general  treasury,  had  now  passed  away;  and  the  Legis- 
latures of  the  several  States  were  loath  to  burden  their 
impoverished  constituents  with  even  the  taxes  necessary 
to  discharge  their  own  obligations,  contracted  in  each 
State  for  the  maintenance  of  its  own  military  organiza- 
tion and  the  defense  of  its  own  soil.  Hence  there  was 
inadequate  provision  for  the  debts  and  obligations  of 
the  Continental  Congress  and  “ the  United  States  in 
(Congress  assembled.” 

This  situation  induced  some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the 
States  to  advocate  amending  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion so  that  the  “ United  States  in  Congress  assembled” 
could  lay  and  collect  taxes;  and  in  a short  time  com- 
mercial jealousies  of  particular  States,  threatening  the 
peace  of  the  Union,  indicated  the  necessity  of  other 
amendments.  At  last,  after  four  years  of  uncertainty 
and  discontent — counting  from  the  definitive  treaty  of 
peace — a Convention  w'as  called,  framed  a new  Consti- 
tution, and  asked  the  States  to  ratify  it,  as  we  have  seen. 

This  general  survey  of  the  relations  of  the  States  pre- 
pares us  for  a somewhat  critical  inquiry  into  the  struc- 
ture of  the  Union,  which  we  will  postpone  to  the  next 
chapter,  wherein  we  shall  study  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence. the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Note  A. 

BRITISH  TAXATION  AND  ITS  EFFECTS  ON  THE  COLONIES  OP 
NORTH  AMERICA. 

“Taxation  without  representaticn”  has  always  been  held  to  have 
been  the  cause  of  the  Revolutionary  war;  but  familiar  as  we  are 
with  the  difRculty  of  bringing  the  masses  of  the  people  to  a realiza- 
tion of  the  heavy  tax- burden  imposed  on  them  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, it  is  not  easy  to  understand  how  the  peoples  of  all  the 
Colonies  could  have  been  induced  to  unite  in  measures  of  opposi- 
tion to  British  taxation.  To-day  the  average  man  who  complains 

3 


34 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


if  his  direct  tax  to  his  State,  county  or  town  amounts  to  §25,  will  in 
the  course  of  a year  pay  to  his  merchant  S150  for  his  purchases,  $75 
of  it  going  to  the  Federal  treasury,  if  the  goods  are  foreign,  or  into 
the  pocket  of  the  manufacturer,  if  they  are  domestic;  and  he  will 
do  this  without  a murmur,  because  the  tax  is  concealed  from  him. 
being  levied,  as  Turgot  said,  so  as  to  pluck  the  goo.se  without  mak- 
ing it  cry. 

Note  B. 

The  historians  who  have  persistently  asserted  that  Great  Britain 
never  “attempted  directly  or  indirectly  to  derive  a dollar  of  reve- 
nue” from  these  Colonies,  have  never  satisfactorily  accounted  for 
the  existence  of  Custom  Houses  at  all  the  seaports.  They  tell  us 
that  the  Custom  House  was  moved  from  Bo.ston  to  Salem:  but  the 
reader  is  left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  duties  of  the  officers.  The  truth 
seems  to  be  that  taxes  were  collected  on  certain  imports,  to  which 
the  importer  raised  no  objection,  because  he  reimbursed  himself 
when  he  sold  the  articles  to  liis  customers,  Avho,  as  now,  did  not  see 
the  tax  “wrapped  up”  in  the  price.  Hence  it  was  easy  to  convince 
the  great  majority  of  the  people,  as  it  is  now,  that  they  were  not 
taxed  by  tariff  acts. 

But  import  taxes  were  not  all.  In  all  the  Royal  Colonies  there  was 
an  annual  land  tax  called  “quit  rents,”  collected  by  the  King's  offi- 
cers and  turned  over  to  the  Royal  Treasury.  In  1729,  when  George 
II  bought  seven  shares  of  North  Carolina  from  the  Lords  Proprie- 
tors, he  paid  ,5,000  pounds  for  the  “quit  rents”  then  in  arrears.  The 
custom  was  to  sell  land  for  a nominal  sum — 50  shillings  per  100  acres 
and  stipulate  for  this  annual  rent,  which  was  usually  four  shillings 
Ijer  100  acres,  or  nearly  one  cent  per  acre. 

This  was  quite  a heavy  tax ; it  would  amount  to-day  to  about  a 
quarter  of  a million  of  dollars  in  North  Carolina.  But  there  was  no 
outcry  against  it. 

Note  C. 

The  New  England  Colonies  sent  Col.  Ethan  Allen  twice  into  Can 
ada.  in  the  autumn  of  1775,  to  observe  the  disposition  of  the  people 
and  enlist  their  cooperation,  with  apparently  favorable  results.  In 
a letter  from  John  Penn,  one  of  North  Carolina’s  delegates  in  the 
Continental  Congress,  to  Thomas  Person,  dated  February  12.  1776. 
he  said:  “The  Canadians  in  general  are  on  our  .side.” — North  Caro 
Una  Colonial  Records,  X,  448. 

And  about  the  time  Penn  wrote  this  letter  the  Congress  sent  Dr. 
Franklin,  Samuel  Chase  and  Charles  Carroll  on  a mission  to  Can- 
ada; and  in  April  invited  Father  John  Carroll  (Charles's  cousin)  to 
go  with  them.  The  latter  was  selected  “because  of  his  * 

religious  .standing  among  his  brethren  of  the  Catholic  faith,  and  be- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


35 


cause  of  his  knowledge  of  the  French  language,  and  of  his  influence 
with  the  Canadians.” 

We  may  never  know  the  reasons  why  this  mission  failed.  Possibly 
religious  prejudices  stood  in  the  way  of  their  cooperating  with  the 
Puritans  of  New  England;,  possibly  the  defeat  and  exi^ulsion  from 
Canada  of  the  exiieditions  under  Arnold  and  Montgomery  in  Decern  • 
ber,  1775,  had  its  influence;  and  possibly  Hildreth  gives  the  true 
reason  (Vol.  Ill,  p.  33)  in  the  following  paragraph: 

“A  fifth  act  of  Parliament,  passed  April  15,  1774,  known  as  the 
Quebec  Act,  designed  to  prevent  that  newly  acquired  Province  from 
joining  with  the  other  Colonies,  restored  in  civil  matters  the  old 
French  law — tin  custom  of  Paris — and  guaranteed  to  the  Catholic 
Church  the  possession  of  its  ample  pro^jerty,  amounting  to  a fourth 
part  or  more  of  the  old  French  grants,  with  the  full  freedom  of  wor- 
ship,” etc. 

The  absence  of  Georgia's  delegates  may  be  accounted  for  by  re 
membering  that  she  was  farthest  removed  from  the  storm  centre, 
and,  therefore,  less  easily  brought  under  its  influence.  Alden’s  Cy- 
cloptedia  (Art.  Massachusetts)  says:  “From  the  beginning  of  her 
great  struggle  against  oj^pression,  Massachusetts  had  the  active 
sympathy  of  her  sister  Colonies,  who  had  far  less  cause  for  com 
plaint  than  she.  ” But  there  is  danger  of  confounding  svnnpathy  for 
the  suffering  poor  with  sympathy  for  the  “rebels” ; the  latter  was 
a plant  of  slow  growth  in  many  of  the  Colonies. 

As  to  Georgia’s  grounds  for  comivlaint  against  England,  this  Cy- 
clopiedia  (Art.  Georgia)  says:  “It  was  acknowledged  at  the  time, 
and  the  claim  has  since  been  substantiated  beyond  question,  that 
the  people  of  Georgia  had  no  cause  for  personal  or  Colonial  dissatis- 
faction with  England  during  the  exciting  days  that  preceded  the 
Revolution.  The  relations  between  the  Colony  and  the  home  gov- 
ernment had  been  wholly  amicable,  and  none  of  the  acts  of  oppres- 
sion of  which  the  New  England  Colonies  particularly  complained 
had  been  enforced  against  Georgia.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTEE  III. 

THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE,  THE  ARTICLES  OF 
CONFEDERATION,  AND  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

The  Declaration.  Etc. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  opens  with  a gen- 
eral proposition  as  to  the  right  of  “ one  people  to  dissolve 
the  political  bands,  ‘ ’ etc. 

Applying  this  general  truth  to  the  case  in  hand,  it 
proceeds  with  a general  statement  of  the  abuses  which 
constrain  “ these  Colonies’’  to  “ alter  their  former  sys- 
tems ot  government.”  Then,  after  detailing  the  par- 
ticular abuses  of  which  the  Colonies  complained,  it  de- 
clares that;  “ These  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  free  and  independent  States;  that  they  are 
absolved  from  all  allegiance  to  the  British  Crown,  and 
that  all  political  connection  between  them  and  the  State 
of  Great  Britain,  is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved, " 
etc. 

It  recognized  no  government  here  except  that  of  each 
(’olony,  and  it  warrants  no  inference  that  it  contem- 
plated any  other  government. 

The  Articles  and  the  Constitution. 

For  the  most  satisfactory  study  of  the  Articles  of  Con- 
federation and  the  Constitution,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
compare  them  as  we  proceed. 

Under  the  Articles,  all  powers  granted  by  the  States 
were  to  be  under  the  direction  of  the  Congress  of  the 
States — ” the  United  States,  in  Congress  assembled  ” 

^ The  enacting  clause  of  every  act  of  Congress — "Be  it  enacted  by 
the  Senate  and  House  of  Kei)resentatives  of  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled”- — recognizes  the  truth  that  the  Congress  under 
the  Constitution  is  a Congress  of  States. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


37 


under  the  Constitution,  the  powers  granted  were  vested 
in  three  separate  and  independent  departments — the 
Legislative,  -Judicial  and  Executive. 

Under  the  Articles,  the  Legislature  consisted  of  only 
one  House,  in  which  each  State  could  cast  only  one 
vote;  under  the  Constitution,  the  Legislature  consists  of 
two  Houses,  namely,  the  Senate,  in  which  the  equality 
of  th“  States  is  preserved  by  each  State's  having  tvvo 
Senators,  and  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  which 
each  is  represented  according  to  its  popnlatmn,  except 
that  a State  must  be  allowed  at  least  one  memoer  hovr 
ever  small  its  population  may  be. 

Under  the  Articles,  each  State  supported  its  own  mem- 
bers: under  the  Constitution,  they  are  supported  out  of 
the  Federal  treasury. 

Under  the  Articles,  the  States  bound  themselves  to 
collect  and  transmit  to  the  Federal  treasury  the  sums 
of  money  required  of  them,  on  an  established  appor- 
tionment, by  the  Congress;  under  the  Constitution,  the 
Congress  is  empowered  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties, 
imposts,  and  excises;  provided  that  all  direct  taxes  shall 
be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  according  to 
their  representative  population,  and  that  all  other  taxes 
shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  States. 

Under  the  Articles,  the  “ Committee  of  the  States  ” 
executed  the  laws  when  the  Congress  was  not  in  ses- 
sion; under  the  Constitution,  the  President  of  the  United 
States  executes  the  laws.' 

^The  oath  of  the  President  “to  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,”  was  understood  by  Mr.  Lincoln 
to  be  an  oath  to  lu-eserve  the  Union.  In  his  first  inaugural  address 
he  said:  “You  have  no  oath  registered  in  Heaven  to  destroy  the 
Government,  while  I shall  have  the  most  solemn  one  to  ‘preserve, 
protect  and  defend  it.’”  And  this  is  the  view  of  that  oath  pre- 
sented to  the  youth  of  the  U nion  by  even  so  fair  a writer  as  Mont 
gomery. — Am.  Hist.,  page  286. 


38 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Under  the  Articles,  the  Congress  appointed  all  neces- 
sary officers,  civil,  military  and  judicial;  under  the  Con- 
stitidion,  the  President,  hy  and  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate — that  is,  the  States,  sioce  in  that 
body  the  States  have  “equal  suffrage’’ — appoints  all  the 
officers  except  some  inferior  ones,  whose  appointment 
the  Congress  may  vest  in  the  President  alone,  in  the 
J udges,  or  in  the  heads  of  departments,  except  also  that 
the  President  is  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  and 
navy,^  and  except  also,  as  under  the  Articles,  all  offi- 
cers of  State  troops  furnished  for  the  common  defense, 
of  and  below  the  rank  of  Colonel,  shall  he  appointed  by 
the  States. 

Now  let  us  compare  the  mutual  covenants  of  the 
States  to  be  found  in  both  instruments;  and  then  the 
delegations  of  power  by  the  States  to  be  found  in  both. 

In  the  first,  each  State  retained  its  sovereignty,  free- 
dom and  independence,  and  every  right,  power  and 
jurisdiction  which  it  did  not  expressly  delegate  to  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled  -;  in  the  second,  all 


^The  following  remarks  by  Mr.  Hamilton  in  No.  LXYII  of  the 
Feclerali.st,  intended  to  silence  those  who  had  objected  to  the  crea- 
tion of  the  office  of  President,  which  they  had  “inveighed  against 
with  less  candor, ” and  “criticised  with  less  judgment'’ than  any 
other  provision  of  the  Constitution,  may  amuse  the  reader : 

“Calculating  upon  the  aversion  of  the  people  to  monarchy,  they 
have  endeavored  to  enlist  all  their  jealousies  and  apprehensions  in 
opposition.  * * * To  establish  the  pretended  affinity,  they  have 
not  scrupled  to  draw  resources  even  from  the  regions  of  fiction.  The 
authorities  of  a magistrate,  in  few  instances  greater,  in  some  less, 
than  those  of  a Go%-ernor  of  New  York,  have  been  magnified  into 
more  than  royal  prerogatives.” 

^ Notwithstanding  this  clear  language,  of  the  meaning  of  which  no 
school  boy  could  have  any  doubt,  John  Fiske,  a representative  of 
the  culture  of  New  England,  says  on  page  94  of  his  Critical  Period, 
etc.,  that  by  the  Articles  “the  sovereignty  of  the  several  States  was 
expressly  limited  and  curtailed  in  many  important  particulars." 
And  Mr.  Fiske  seems  unconscious  of  the  inconsistency  of  this  im- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


39 


powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Con- 
stitution. nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  were  re- 
served to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

In  the  first,  the  States  bound  themselves  under  a firm 
league  of  friendship  to  labor  for  their  cojiimon  defense, 
the  security  of  their  liberties,  and  their  mutual  and  gen- 
eral welfare,  etc. ; in  the  second,  the  object  in  view  was 
declared  to  be  to  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tran- 
quillity^, provide  for  the  commou  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty,  etc. 

In  the  first,  each  State  was  to  have  one  vote  in  deter- 
mining all  questions;  in  the  second,  the  equal  power  of 
the  several  States  was  preserved  in  the  Senate,  wherein 
“equal  suffrage”  is  secured  to  each,  of  which  it  can  not 
be  deprived  without  its  consent. 

In  both,  the  citizens  of  each  State  were  to  be  entitled 
to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  sev- 
eral States.’ 

In  both,  full  faith  and  credit  should  be  given  in  each 
St.ate  to  the  public  records  of  the  other  States. 

Ijlied  admission  of  the  existence  of  “the  sovereignty  of  the  several 
States,”  with  the  assertion  on  the  same  page  (94)  that  “in  severing 
their  connection  with  England  these  Commonwealths  {sic)  entered 
into  some  sort  of  union  which  was  incompatible  with  their  absolute 
sovereignty  taken  severally.” 

But  after  John  A.  Andrew,  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts,  an- 
nounced the  doctrine,  in  the  Altoona  Address,  that  the  people  of 
the  States  are  “the  subjects  of  the  National  Government,”  political 
vagaries  in  that  quarter  should  not  surpri.se  us. 

'On  September  25,  1898,  one  hundred  free  citizens  of  the  State  of 
Alabama  reached  Virden  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  having  been  em- 
ployed to  work  in  coal  mines  in  that  locality;  but  threats  of  shoot- 
ing them  drove  them  back  to  Alabama.  Again,  on  October  12,  of 
the  same  year,  two  hundred  free  citizens  of  Southern  States  went 
to  the  same  place  for  the  same  purpose ; but  they  were  met  by  rifle 
shots  instead  of  threats.  In  both  instances  Governor  Tanner,  of 
Illinois,  declined  to  insui-e  to  these  people  the  enjoyment  of  the 
privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens  of  Illinois. 


40 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


In  both,  persons  charged  in  one  State  with  treason.' 
felony  or  other  crime,  fleeing  into  another  State,  were 
to  he  delivered  up  on  demand,  etc. 

In  the  second,  slaves  and  apprentices — persons  bound 
to  service  for  a term  of  years — in  one  State,  fleeing  into 
another  State,  were  to  be  delivered  up,  etc.^ 

In  both,  neither  the  United  States  nor  any  one  of 
them  should  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

In  the  first,  no  United  States  officer  or  State  officer 
should  accept  any  present,  office,  etc.,  from  any  king, 
prince,  or  foreign  State;  in  the  second,  no  United  States 
officer  should  accept  such  present,  etc.,  without  the 
consent  of  Congress,  nor  should  any  person  holding  any 
office  under  the  TTnited  States  be  a member  of  either 
House  of  the  Congress  during  his  continuance  in  office.* 

'North  Carolina's  “carpet-bag”  Constitution  detines  treason 
against  the  State. 

A clear  understanding  of  the  infractions  of  the  Constitution  by 
certain  States  requires  us  to  bear  in  mind  that  no  power  was  dele- 
gated to  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  to  enforce  the  mutual 
covenants  of  the  States  respecting  their  public  records,  “ the  privi 
leges  and  immunities  of  citizens,”  the  restoration  of  criminals,  or 
the  restoration  of  slaves  or  servants  provided  for  in  the  Ordinance 
for  the  government  of  the  Northwest  Territory;  and  that  no  such 
power  was  delegated  in  the  Constitution  over  these  covenants  or 
over  that  respecting  fugitives  from  labor.  In  the  language  of  the 
Supreme  Court  in  Kentucky  v.  Ohio,  24  Howard,  66  (commenting 
on  the  Act  of  February  12,  1793,  prescribing  the  “duty”  of  the  Gov 
ernor  of  a State  when  a demand  is  made  for  a fugitive  from  justice), 
the  security  for  the  performance  of  these  covenants  is  “ the  moral 
obligation”  of  the  States.  See  Note  D. 

Many  officers  who  served  in  the  armies  which  subjugated  the 
Southern  States,  and  were  afterwards  placed  on  the  retired  list  with 
comfortable  salaries,  have  served  in  both  Houses  of  Congress  and 
drawn  their  salaries  as  other  members;  and  many  gentlemen  have 
served  in  both  Houses,  drawing  their  salaries  regularly,  whose  pen 
sions  were  affording  them  a comfortable  li\'ing.  Thus  in  one  case 
the  letter,  and  in  the  other  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  has  been 
disregarded;  it  was  not  intended  that  a pensioner  should  sit  in  the 
Legislature  and  assist  in  framing  pension  laws. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  il 

In  both,  no  State  was  to  enter  into  any  treaty,  alli- 
ance, etc.,  without  the  consent  of  the  Congress. 

In  both,  no  two  or  more  States  were  to  form  any  alli- 
ance between  themselves  without  the  like  consent  of 
the  States  in  Congress. 

In  both,  no  State,  without  the  like  consent,  should 
keep  troops  or  war  vessels  in  time  of  peace. 

In  the  first,  each  State  was  to  keep  up  a well-organized 
militia;  in  the  second,  the  Congress  was  forbidden  to 
infringe  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms. 

In  the  first,  no  State  was  to  lay  any  duty  upon  for- 
eign imports ' if  it  conflicted  with  any  treaty;  in  the 
second,  no  State  was  to  lay  any  duty  on  imports  or  ex- 
ports, without  the  consent  of  the  Congress,  except  what 
might  be  necessary  for  executing  its  inspection  laws. 

In  the  first,  no  State  was  to  grant  lelters  of  marque 
and  reprisal  without  the  consent  of  the  Congress,  un- 
less it  were  invaded;  in  the  second,  no  State  was  to 
grant  such  letters. 

In  both,  no  State  was  to  engage  in  war  without  the 
like  consent,  unless  invaded  or  threatened  with  invasion. 

In  the  first,  each  State  was  to  furnish  the  troops  called 
for  by  the  Congress,  arm  and  equip  them  at  the  expense 
of  the  United  States;  in  the  second,  the  States  confk’- 
red  on  the  Congress  the  power  to  raise  armies,  etc. 

In  the  first,  the  States  were  pledged  to  pay  all  the 
debts  contracted  by  the  Continental  Congress;  in  the 
second,  they  were  pledged  to  discharge  all  the  pecuniary 
obligations  entered  into  by  the  United  States  previously 
to  the  establishment  of  the  more  perfect  Union. 

In  the  Jirst,  it  was  agreed  that  Canada  might  come 
into  the  Union  if  she  chose  to  do  so,  and  that  other  Col- 
onies or  Provinces  might  do  so  by  the  consent  of  nine 
States;  in  the  second,  it  was  agreed  that  Congress 
might  admit  new  States  into  the  Union,  provided  that 


-1-2 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


it  should  not  interfere  with  the  boundaries  of  any  State 
without  its  consent.' 

In  the  first,  each  State  was  to  abide  by  the  decisions 
of  Congress  on  all  matters  which  they  had  entrusted  to 
it,  the  .4rticles  of  Confederation  were  to  be  inviolably 
observed  by  every  State,  and  the  Union  was  to  be  per- 
petual; in  the  second,  the  Constitution,  the  Constitu- 
tional acts  of  Congress,  and  all  treaties  made  or  to  be 
made  were  to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  to  sup- 
port which  all  judicial,  executive  and  legislative  offi- 
cers of  the  several  States  should  be  bound  by  oath  or 
affirmation — an  oath  which  the  actual  administration 
of  the  Government  has  rendered  practically  meaning- 
less: but  which,  when  it  is  understood  that  the  “moral 
obligation  of  the  States  ” is  the  only  Constitutional  se- 
curity for  the  faithful  observance  of  the  mutual  cove- 
nants of  the  States,  is  as  necessary  and  is  as  pregnant 
with  meaning  as  the  oath  of  the  President. - 

x4nd  in  the  first,  no  alteration  should  be  made  in  the 
Articles  without  the  consent  of  every  State;  In  the 
second,  two  methods  of  amending  the  Constitution 
were  provided.  One  was  that  two-thirds  of  both  Houses 
might  propose  amendments,  which,  being  ratified  by 
three-fourths  of  the  States,  should  be  valid  parts  of  the 
Constitution^;  and  the  other  was  that  on  the  application 

* West  Virginia  was  erected  into  a State  within  the  boundaries  of 
Virginia  without  the  consent  of  the  latter. 

There  is  no  intimation  here  that  the  Government  was  to  be  su 
preme;  and  the  oath  of  the  State  officer  to  support  the  Constitution 
was  no  more  an  oath  of  allegiance,  as  is  implied  in  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment,  than  his  oath  to  support  his  State  Constitution  is  an 
oath  of  allegiance  to  his  State.  And  even  if  it  were,  his  oath  could 
not  bind  his  constituents. 

® The  reader  will  note  that  “ two-thirds  of  both  Houses  ” did  not 
mean  tvo-thirds  of  the  bodies  which  proposed  the  last  three  amend- 
ments ; and  that  the  ratifications  of  the  States  were  to  be  vTthout 
any  fear  of  confiscation  or  of  prolonged  military  despotism. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


43 


of  the  Legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  States,  the  Con- 
gress should  call  a Convention  of  the  States  for  propos- 
ing amendments,  which  should  likewise  become  parts 
of  the  Constitution  when  ratified  by  three-fourths  of 
the  States. 

In  the  first,  no  member  of  Congress  could,  while  a 
member,  hold  any  office  under  the  United  States;  in  the 
second,  no  Senator  or  Representative  can,  during  the 
time  for  which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil 
office  under  the  United  States,  which  shall  have  been 
created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall  have  been  in- 
creased during  such  time. 

In  the  second,  each  State  obligated  itself  not  to  pass 
any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  any  law  vio- 
lating the  obligation  of  contracts. 

In  the  second,  each  State  obligated  itself  not  to  lay 
an}^  tax  on  tonnage  without  the  consent  of  Congress. 

And  in  the  second,  the  United  States  obligated  them- 
selves to  guarantee  to  each  other  a republican  form  of 
government ; to  defend  each  other  in  case  of  invasion ; 
and,  if  called  on  by  the  Legislature  or  by  the  Governor 
(when  the  Legislature  can  not  be  convened),  to  protect 
each  other  against  domestic  violence. 

Such  are  the  mutual  covenants;  and  now  we  will 
compare  the  powers  delegated  by  the  States  in  the  two 
instruments,  besides  the  few  already  mentioned. 

* In  the  first,  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled, 
nine  States  consenting,  had  the  sole  and  exclusive  right 
and  power  of  determining  on  peace  and  war,  except  in 
the  cases  mentioned  already — ^actual  invasion,  etc. ; in 
the  second,  the  same  power,  with  the  same  exception,  is 
granted  to  the  Congress. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  the  like  power  to  send 
Ambassadors ; in  the  second,  the  President,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  (or  States,  since 


44 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  States  have  equal  suffrage  in  that  body),  appoints 
Ambassadors. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  the  like  power  to  re- 
ceive Ambassadors ; in  the  second,  the  President  alone 
receives  Ambassadors. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  the  like  power  to  make 
treaties,  with  a proviso ; in  the  second,  the  President, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the 
Senators,  makes  treaties. 

In  both,  the  Congress  is  empowered  to  make  rules 
concerning  captures  on  land  and  water. 

In  both,  exclusive  power  was  delegated  to  the  Con- 
gress to  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in  time  of 
peace. 

In  both,  the  Congress  was  empowered  to  provide  for 
the  punishment  of  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on 
the  high  seas. 

In  the  first,  disputes  between  States  were  to  be  set- 
tled, in  the  last  resort,  by  the  Congress;  irt  the  second. 
such  disputes  are  to  be  settled  by  the  United  States 
courts. 

In  the  first,  disputes  about  titles  to  land  granted  by 
different  States  were  to  be  decided  by  the  Congress:  i)i 
the  second,  such  disputes  are  to  be  settled  b;r  the  Fed- 
eral Courts. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  the  sole  and  exclusive 
right  and  power  of  regulating  the  alloy  and  value  ot 
coin  struck  by  their  owm  authority,  or  by  that  of  the 
respective  States;  in  the  second,  the  Congress  has  the 
power  to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof,  and  of 
foreign  coin. 

In  both,  the  Congress  was  granted  power  to  fix  the 
standard  of  weights  and  measures. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  was  empowered  to  regulate 
the  trade  and  manage  all  affairs  with  the  Indians,  with 


THE  SOUTH  AGAIJSST  THE  NORTH. 


45 


a proviso;  in  the  second,  the  Congress  has  the  power  to 
regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations,  between  the 
States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  power  to  establish  or 
regulate  post-offices  from  one  State  to  another;  m the 
second,  the  Congress  has  power  to  establish  post-offices 
and  post  roads. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  had  power  to  appoint  all 
naval  officers  and  the  officers  of  the  land  forces,  except 
regimental  officers;  in  the  second,,  these  officers  are  ap- 
pointed by  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  with  certain  exceptions  made  by 
the  Congress,  as  before  mentioned. 

In  both,  the  Congress  was  empowered  to  make  rules 
for  the  government  of  the  land  and  naval  forces. 

In  both,  the  Congress  was  empowered  to  borrow  money 
on  the  credit  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  first,  the  Congress  w^as  empowered  to  emit 
bills  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States;  in  the  second, 
no  such  power  was  granted,  the  proposition  to  grant  it 
being  deliberately  stricken  out  from  the  final  draft  of 
the  Constitution  as  submitted  to  the  Convention. ‘ 

In  both,  the  power  was  granted  to  provide  and  main- 
tain a navy. 

Thus  we  have  gone  over  the  powers  delegated  to  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  and  those  in  the 
Constitution  relating  to  similar  subjects.  There  are  a 
few"  others  in  the  Constitution,  some  of  them  made  nec- 
essary by  the  Constitution  cf  the  Congress.  They  are 
as  follows: 

' On  the  motion  to  strike  out,  the  States  voting-  in  the  affirmative 
were  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Pennsylvania, 
Delawai-e,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia, 
9;  and  those  voting  in  the  negative  were  New  Jersey  and  Maryland. 
2.— El.  Deb.,  I,  245. 


46 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


The  Senate  is  made  a court  to  try  impeachments,  a 
two-thirds  vote  being  necessary  to  conviction. 

The  Congress  may  alter,  amend  or  substitute  others 
for  State  laws  regulating  the  times,  places  and  manner 
of  holding  elections  for  Senators  and  Representatives, 
except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  Senators.' 

For  the  different  naturalization  laws  of  the  States. 
Congress  was  authorized  to  substitute  one  uniform  rale: 
and  to  do  the  like  with  reference  to  bankruptcies. 

It  can  provide  for  punishing  counterfeiters  of  the 
securities  and  current  coin  of  the  United  States 

It  can  promote  inventions  and  discoveries,  etc. 

It  can  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute 
the  laws  of  the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel 
invasions. 

It  can  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining 
the  militia,  and  for  governing  such  parts  of  them  as 
may  be  employed  in  the  service  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  empowered  to  dispose  of  the  public  lauds  which 
were  ceded  to  the  United  States  after  the  adoption  of 
the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  all  other  property  be 
longing  to  the  United  States,  and  to  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  same. 


‘ The  reader  will  be  interested  in  the  following:  remarks  made  by 
Gen.  William  R.  Davie  in  defense  of  this  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. He  had  been  a member  of  the  Convention  which  framed  the 
Constitiition ; was  now  a member  of  North  Carolina's  Convention 
which  rejected  it;  and  was  an  ardent  supporter  of  it. 

Attempting  to  meet  the  objections  of  his  opponents  (whom  subse 
quent  events  have  proved  not  to  have  been  wholly  devoid  of  the 
spirit  of  proithecy),  he  said: 

“Mr.  Chairman,  a consolidation  of  the  States  is  said  by  some  gen 
tlemen  to  have  been  intended.  They  insinuate  that  this  was  the 
cause  of  their  giving  this  power  of  elections” — times,  places,  and 
manner.  “If  there  were  any  seeds  in  this  Constitution  which  might, 
one  day,  produce  a consolidation,  it  would,  sir,  with  me,  be  an  in 
superable  objection.” — Elliot’s  Debates,  Volume  IV,  page  58. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  • i7 

It  can  exercise  exclusive  legislation  over  such  district 
as  may,  by  cession  of  particular  States  and  the  accept- 
ance of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  government,  and 
also  over  all  places  purchased  by  the  consent  of  the 
Legislatui’e  of  the  State  in  which  the  same  may  be,  for 
the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards, 
and  other  needful  buildings. 

And  it  may  make  all  laws  which  may  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  all  the  powers 
granted  by  the  States  in  the  Constitution. 

To  these  provisions  must  now  be  added  those  which 
were  designed  to  shield  the  States  and  the  people  against 
the  exercise  of  objectionable  and  usurped  powers.  Briefly 
stated  they  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  importation  of  African  slaves  could  not  be 
prohibited  till  1808. 

2.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not 
be  suspended  unless  the  public  safety  may  require  it  in 
case  of  rebellion,  invasion,  etc. 

3.  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ea^jpost/ac to  law  shall  be 
passed. 

+.  No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  ex- 
cept in  proportion  to  the  representative  population  of 
the  several  States. 

5.  No  tax  shall  be  laid  on  any  article  exported  from 
any  State. 

6.  No  preference  shall  be  given  to  the  ports  of  any 
one  State. 

7.  No  money  shall  be  appropriated  for  raising  or  sup- 
porting armies  for  a longer  period  than  two  years. 

8.  No  punishment  for  treason,  which  is  defined  to  be 
a levying  of  war  against  the  United  States,  adhering  to 
their  enemies,  etc.,  shall  work ' corruption  of  blood  or 
forfeiture  except  during  the  life  of  the  traitor. 

9.  No  law  shall  be  passed  interfering  with  the  religion 
of  the  people,  or  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of 


48 


THE  SOUTH  AGAIXST  THE  NORTH. 


the  press;  or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assem- 
ble and  petition  for  a redress  of  grievances. 

10.  No  soldier  shall  be  quartered  in  any  man’s  house 
in  time  of  peace  against  his  will,  nor  in  time  of  war, 
but  in  a manner  prescribed  by  law. 

11.  -Unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  are  forbidden, 
and  no  warrants  shall  issue,  but  upon  probable  cause, 
supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  de- 
scribing the  place  to  be  searched,  and  the  person  or 
thing  to  be  seized. 

12.  No  person  shall  be  tried  for  a capital  or  other  in- 
famous crime,  unless  on  an  indictment  or  presentment 
of  a grand  jury,  except  in  the  arm}'  or  navy;  nor  shall 
any  person  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb;  nor 
shall  any  person  be  compelled  in  a criminal  case  to  he  a 
witness  against  himself ; nor  shall  he  be  deprived  of 
life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of  law ; nor 
shall  his  property  he  taken  from  him  without  just  com- 
pensation. 

13.  Every  person  accused  of  a crime  shall  enjoy  the 
right  to  a speedy  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State 
and  District  in  which  the  offense  is  alleged  to  have  been 
committed,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause 
of  the  accusation;  to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses 
against  him;  to  have  compulsory  pi’ocess  for  obtaining 
witnesses  in  his  favor;  and  to  have  the  assistance  of 
counsel  for  his  defense! 

^ The  treatment  of  Major  Henry  Wirtz  will  impress  these  two  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  on  the  reader’s  memory.  He  was  not 
‘'in  the  army  or  navy”:  he  was  not  tried  on  ”an  hidictment  or  pre- 
sentment of  a g-rand  jury”;  he  was  tried  in  Washington  City  by  a 
court  martial  organized  to  convict,  instead  of  ”by  an  impartial  jury 
of  the  State  and  District”  in  which  the  alleged  offense  was  commit- 
ted; he  had  no  “compulsory  inocess  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  his 
favor,”  and  those  who  volunteered  to  go  as  witnesses  were  fright- 
ened away  by  threats  of  arrest ; and  he  was  "deprived  of  life”  "with- 
out due  process  of  law.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


49 


14.  The  right  of  trial  by  jury  shall  be  preserved  in 
suits  where  the  value  in  controversy  shall  exceed  $20, 
etc. 

15.  Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,,  nor  excessive 
fines  imposed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  in- 
dicted. 

16.  The  judicial  power  shall  not  extend  (as  was  pro- 
vided for  in  the  Constitution  as  it  was  adopted)  to  any 
suit  in  law  or  equity  against  one  of  the  United  States, 
prosecuted  by  citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  citizens 
or  subjects  of  a foreign  State. 

17.  And  since  a well-regulated  militia  is  necessary  to 
the  security  of  a “ free  State,”  the  right  of  the  people 
of  a State  “ to  keep  and  bear  arms”  shall  not  be  in- 
fringed by  the  Federal  Government. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  States  delegated  in  the  Con- 
stitution only  two  important  powers  not  found  in  the 
Articles  of  Confederation,  namely,  that  to  lay  and  col- 
lect taKes,  etc.,  and  that  to  regulate  commerce;  and 
that  the  States  agreed  to  forego  no  really  important 
power  except  that  to  replenish  their  treasuries  by  taxes 
on  imports. 

And  it  also  appears  that  the  delegation  of  what  are 
called  “sovereign  powers”  in  the  Constitution — foreign 
intercourse,  war,  etc. — is  no  stronger  evidence  of  a dele- 
gation of  sovereignty  than  the  delegation  of  them  in 
the  Articles  was;  ‘ and  on  the  face  of  both  instruments 

‘ This  truth  has  been  hidden  from  their  readers  by  almost  all  mod- 
ern political  writers  in  the  Northern  States.  One  of  the  most  respec- 
table of  them,  John  Fiske.  does  this  on  pages  208  and  209  of  his 
Civil  Government  in  the  United  States,  where  he  steps  from  the 
Continental  Congress  to  the  Congress  of  the  Constitution,  utterly 
ignoring  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation.  He  does  the  same  on 
page  243,  where  he  says  that  “ from  1776  to  1789  the  United  States 
MJere  a Confederation;  after  1789  it  «/•«.?  a F ederal  Nation”  (italics 
and  “it”  his).  Then,  apparently  adopting  Mr.  Greeley’s  view  that 

4 


50 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  “ sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independence  of  each 
State  were  left  unimpaired.  There  is  not  a syllable  to 
warrant  the  contrary  claim.' 

Now  let  us,  in  conclusion,  point  out  the  important 
powers  belonging  to  the  several  sovereign  States  which 
they  retained: 

1 . The  State  was  the  heir  of  all  property  belonging  to 
one  of  its  citizens — man,  woman,  or  child — who  died 
without  other  heirs. 

2.  The  State  could  condemn  for  public  use  any  land 
or  other  property  in  its  borders. 

3.  The  State  could  punish  its  citizens  for  treason  - (See 
Constitution  of  the  U.  S.,  Art.  IV,  sec.  11.  clause  2j, 
felony  or  other  crimes  against  the  peace  and  dignity  of 
the  State. 

4.  The  State  could  provide  for  the  probate  of  deeds. 


the  States  were  entrapped  when  they  adopted  the  Constitution,  he 
says:  “The  passage  from  plura,!  to  singular  was  accomplished, 
although  it  took  some  people  a good  wliile  to  realize  the  fact.” 

And  even  “ the  great  expounder.”  Mr.  Webster,  confounded  the 
Continental  Congress  with  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation.  In 
his  speech  to  the  young  men  of  Albany,  N.  T.,  May  2S,  1851,  he 
said;  “And  you,  my  young  friends  of  Albany,  if  you  will  take  the 
pains  to  go  hack  to  the  debates  of  the  period,  from  the  meeting  of 
the  first  Congress,  m 1774,  1 mean  the  Congress  of  the  Confedera- 
tion, to  the  adoptioir  of  the  present  Constitution,  and  the  enact- 
ment of  the  fh-st  laws  mider  it,”  etc. 

* Mr.  Madison,  in  the  Federahst,  No.  XL,  replymg  to  those  who 
asserted  that  the  Convention  in  framing  the  Constitution  had  not 
kept  in  view  the /«?t(r7a7«e??faZ  principles  oi  the  Ai tides,  says;  “I 
ask,  what  aie  these  piinciples  ’ Do  they  lequire,  that  m the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Constitution,  the  States  should  be  regarded  as  dis- 
tmct  and  mdependent  sovereignties  ? They  are  so  regarded  by  the 
constitution  proposed.” 

The  power  to  punish  for  treason  was  destroyed  by  the  Federal 
Government  in  lS61-’65 ; since  then  many  persons  guilty  of  it  have 
been  rewarded  for  it  by  that  Government ; and  it  is  now  proposed 
to  place  them  on  the  pension  rolls  at  the  expense,  in  parr,  of  the 
people  of  the  Southern  States. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


51 


conveyances,  powers  of  attorney,  and  wills,  and  enforce 
compliance  with  their  terms.' 

5.  The  State  could  punish  one  of  its  citizens  for  any 
trespass,  assault,  libel,  or  any  other  offense  committed 
by  him  against  the  person  or  the  property  or  the  repu- 
tatioD  of  another  citizen. 

6.  The  State  could  establish  and  enforce  relations  be- 
tween husband  and  wife,  parent  and  children,  employer 
and  employee,  and  corporations  and  the  people. 

T.  The  State  could  provide  for  the  education  of  the 
children  of  its  citizens,  the  care  of  the  unfortunate  deaf, 
dumb,  blind,  insane,  and  helpless  poor. 

8.  The  State  could  exclude  undesirable  foreigners 
from  its  borders,  and  its  right  to  do  so  was  never  dele- 
gated to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

9.  The  State  could  make  gold  and  silver  coin  a tender 
in  the  payment  of  debts.  This  it  never  surrendered,  nor 
did  it  delegate  to  the  Congress  a concurrent  power. 

10.  The  State  could  determine  the  qualifications  of 
electors  and  of  public  officers.  And,  in  short, 

11.  The  State  reserved  to  itself  those  powers  which  in 
the  words  of  Mr.  Madison  (Federalist  XLV)  “extend  to 
all  the  objects,  which,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  affairs, 
concern  the  lives,  liberties  and  properties  of  the  people; 
and  the  internal  order,  improvement  and  prosperitv  of 
the  State.” 

With  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles  of 
Confederation,  and  the  Constitution  thus  set  before  him, 
the  reader  is  prepared  to  judge  for  himself,  without 
respect  to  great  names,  whether  the  reasoning  in  the 
following  chapters  is  founded  on  truth  or  error. ^ 

' The  Stamp  Act  of  .June  13,  1898,  which  is  a substantial  reenact- 
ment of  the  law  of  June  30,  1864,  nullifies  State  laws  regulating  the 
certification  and  the  validity  of  contracts,  conveyances,  etc.,  unless 
a Federal  revenue  stamp  he  attached  to  each  one ; and  it  does  this 
without  any  expressed  or  implied  power  delegated  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

* See  Note  E. 


52 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Note  D. 

Among  the  bills  passed  by  the  Congress  during  its  first  four  years, 
without  any  unquestioned  Constitutional  authority,  were  the  fol- 
lowing ; 

1.  To  take  charge  of  river  pilots  in  the  several  States,  and  pre 
scribe  their  duties. 

2.  To  regulate  contracts  between  merchant  seamen  and  their  em- 
ployers. 

3.  To  establish  a United  States  Bank. 

4.  To  apportion  members  of  Congress  among  the  States  after  the 
census  of  1790.  This  was  vetoed  by  the  President. 

5.  To  declare  what  coins  should  be  legal  tender. 

6.  To  pre.scribe  the  “duty"  of  the  Governor  of  a State  to  which  a 
fugitive  from  justice  has  tied. 

7.  To  prescribe  the  duties  of  magistrates  of  counties,  cities  and 
towns  whenever  a fugitive  from  labor  should  be  brought  before 
them  by  the  person  claiming  his  labor. 

It  w'as  claimed  that  the  first  and  second  of  these  fell  under  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce:  that  the  third  fell  under  the  power  to 
make  all  laws  which  should  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying 
into  execution  the  power  to  collect  taxes  and  to  appropriate  them; 
that  the  fifth  fell  under  the  power  to  regulate  the  value  of  coins 
(although  the  right  of  each  State  to  make  gold  and  silver  coins  a 
tender  for  a debt  was  recognized) ; and  that  the  sixth  and  seventh 
fell  under — nobody  knows  what  power. 

To  the  claim  regarding  the  second  it  may  be  objected  that,  if  it  is 
valid.  Congress  can  regulate  the  wages  of  teamsters  engaged  in  in- 
terstate commerce;  to  that  regarding  the  fifth  it  may  be  objected 
that,  if  Congress  can  declare  what  shall  be  legal  tender,  it  can  de- 
clare that  gold  and  silver  coins  .sliall  nni  1 e a legal  tender,  and  thus 
nullify  the  power  of  the  several  States:  to  that  regarding  the  sixth 
and  seventh  it  may  be  objected  that,  if  Congre.ss  can  prescribe  the 
duties  of  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a State,  the  State 
Governments  are  little  more  than  agents  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the 
Congress;  and  in  regard  to  all  these  claims  it  may  be  objected  that, 
if  they  are  valid,  it  was  itseless  to  place  any  enumeration  of  powers 
in  the  Constitution. 


Note  E. 

It  is  important,  in  view  of  the  shametul  perver.sion  of  truth  since 
1861.  that  it  be  impressed  on  the  mind  that  the  first  ten  amemlments 
were  added  to  the  Constitution  for  the  puritose  of  shielding  the  peo- 
ple against  Federal  encroachments  on  their  rights,  and  that  they 
have  nothing  to  do  with  State  or  individual  encroachments.  This 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


53 


is  important  because  ignorance  and  fanaticism  have  not  labored  in 
vain. 

Among  the  first  authoritative  expositions  (from  the  standpoint  of 
ignorance)  was  a resolution  passed  by  the  House  of  Repre.sentatives 
on  the  17th  of  March,  1862,  instructing  a committee  to  inquire  into 
the  arrest  of  two  fugitive  slaves  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  “and 
whether  the  arrest  and  impi  isonment  is  not  a direct  violation  of 
that  provision  of  the  Constitution  (the  Fifth  Article  of  Amend- 
ments), which  says  that  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  his  life  or  lib- 
erty wdthout  due  process  of  law.’'  Afterwards  this  perversion  of 
truth  became  generally  acceped  as  truth,  and  all  these  restraints  on 
the  Federal  Government  were  though  t to  be  restraints  on  the  States 
or  the  jjeople. 

And  even  the  Washington  Post,  Administration  organ,  comment- 
ing on  a provision  in  the  new  Constitxition  of  Mississippi,  which  de- 
nies a .iury  trial  to  a certain  class  of  criminals,  copies  the  Fifth  and 
Sixth  Amendments  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  then  says : “The 
Post  does  not  profess  to  be  learned  in  the  law  and  will  not  ixresume 
to  determine  whether  or  not  this  Louisiana  innovation  is  in  harmony 
with  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Republic.  But  to  a mind  unversed 
in  the  intricacies  of  judicial  interpretation  it  seems  that  the  words 
‘all  criminal  eases’  in  the  Federal  Constitution  must  include  other 
crimes  than  those  which  are  punishable,  under  the  statutes,  ‘by 
impri-sonment  at  hard  labor.’  ” — Copied  in  Wilmington,  N.  C.,  Mes- 
senger, October  23,  1898, 

It  is  equally  important  that  we  do  not  let  the  fact  escape  us  that 
in  nearly  all  our  political  literature  the  Constitution  has  been  sujx 
planted  by  “emergencies,”  “ new  conditions,”  “ the  march  of  na- 
tions,’’ etc. 


54 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

“one  people.” 

Familiar  as  we  now  are  with  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, the  Articles  of  Confederation, and  the  Constitu- 
tion, we  are  prepared  for  an  intelligent  discussion  of  the 
unwarranted  and  vicious  doctrines  which  some  seventy 
years  ago  began  to  supplant  in  some  sections  of  the 
Union  the  true  principles  of  the  Federal  Government. 
And  strangely  enough  the  first  effective  impulse  given 
to  them  was  in  the  States  which  theretofore  had  been 
the  most  consistent  and  strenuous  supporters  of  the 
sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence  of  the  several 
States. 

It  was  in  New  England;  and  it  is  one  of  the  curious 
coincidences  of  history  that  her  intellectual  forces  began 
to  organize  for  the  denial  of  the  teachings  of  their  fathers 
about  the  time  there  was  a consolidation  of  sentiment 
in  the  Southern  States  against  the  injustice  of  protec- 
tion to  New  England’s  manufacturers,  leading  in  one 
State  to  the  adoption  of  measures  threatening  the  peace 
of  the  Union. 

The  substance  of  their  new  doctrines  was  that  the 
people  of  the  several  States  had  consolidated  themselves 
into  a sovereign  Nation,  and  that  the  people  of  one 
State  bear  about  the  same  relation  to  the  Nation  that 
those  of  a county  hear  to  their  State. 

The  two  most  brilliant  luminaries  (of  whom  the  lesser- 
lights  became  as  mere  reflections)  who  championed  this 
doctrine,  wmre  Joseph  Story  and  Daniel  Webster. 

The  celebrated  speech  of  the  latter',  delivered  in  the 
Senate  on  the  16th  of  February,  1833,  and  the  former's 
Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,  published  the  same 
year,  became  the  accepted  exposition  of  the  Constitu- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


55 


tional  relations  of  the  States  in  their  section  of  the 
Union.  Mr.  Webster’s  speech  was  kept  before  the 
youth  of  the  country  in  school  readers,  speakers,  politi- 
cal addresses,  etc.  and  Judge  Story’s  Commentaries, 
adopted  as  a text-book  in  many  seminaries  of  learning, 
even  in  the  Southern  States,  polluted  the  fountains  of 
political  truth  in  all  sections. 

The  “one  people”  doctrine,  founded  by  both  of  them 
on  substantially  the  same  basis,  may  be  conveniently 
summarized  as  follows : 

1.  “None  of  the  Colonies  before  the  Revolution  were, 

in  the  most  large  and  general  sense,  independent,  or 
sovereign  communities.  They  were  * sub- 

jected to  the  British  Crown.  Their  powers  and  authori- 
ties were  derived  from,  and  limited  by  their  respective 
charters.  * * * They  could  make  no  treaty,  declare 

no  war,  send  no  ambassadors,  regulate  no  intercourse  or 
commerce,  nor  in  any  other  shape  act  as  sovereigns  in 
the  negotiations  usual  between  independent  States.  In 
respect  to  each  other,  they  stood  in  the  common  rela- 
tion of  British  subjects.  * * Xf  in  any  sense  they 

might  claim  the  attributes  of  sovereignty,  it  was  only  in 
that  subordinate  sense,  to  which  we  have  alluded,  as  ex- 
ercising within  a limited  extent  certain  usual  powers  of 
sovereignty.  They  did  not  even  affect  local  allegiance. 

2.  “The  Colonies  did  not  severally  act  for  themselves, 
and  proclaim  their  independence.  It  is  true  that  some 
of  the  States  had  previously  formed  incipient  govern- 
ments for  themselves;  but  it  was  done  in  compliance 
with  the  recommendations  of  Congress.  Virginia,  on 
the  29th  of  June,  1776,  by  a Convention  of  Delegates, 
declared  ‘the  Government  of  this  Country./  as  formerly 
exercised  under  the  Crown  of  Great  Britain,  totally  dis- 


* Note  the  use  of  the  word  “country.” 


56 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


solved’ ; and  proceeded  to  form  a new  Constitution  of 
Government.  New  Hampshire  also  formed  a Govern- 
ment in  December,  1775,  which  was  manifestly  intended 
to  be  temporary,  ‘ during,  ’ as  they  said,  ‘ the  unhappy 
and  unnatural  contest  with  Great  Britain.’  New  Jersey, 
too,  established  a frame  of  Government,  oa  the  '!&  of 
July,  1776;  hut  it  was  expressly  declared  that  it  should 
be  void  upon  a reconciliation  with  Great  Britain.  And 
South  Carolina,  in  March,  1776,  adopted  a Constitution 
of  Government;  but  this  was,  in  like  manner,  ‘estab- 
lished until  an  accommodation  between  Great  Britain 
and  America  could  be  obtained.’ 

3.  ‘'The  Declaration  of  Independence  of  all  the  Colo- 
nies was  the  united  act  of  all.  It  was  ‘a  Declaration  by 
the  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in 
Congress  assembled’ ; ‘ by  the  delegates  appointed  by 
the  Good  People  of  the  Colonies,’  as  in  a prior  Declara- 
tion of  Rights  they  were  called.  It  was  not  an  act  done 
by  the  State  Governments,  then  organized;  nor  by  per- 
sons chosen  by  them.  It  was,  emphatically,  the  act  of 
the  whole  People  of  the  United  Colonies,  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  their  Representatives,  chosen  for  that, 
among  other  purposes.  It  was  an  act,  not  competent 
to  the  State  Governments,  oi-  any  of  them,  as  organized 
under  their  Charters,  to  adopt.  Those  Charters  neither 
contemplated  the  case,  nor  provided  for  it.  It  was  an 
act  of  original,  inherent  Sovereignty,  by  the  People 
themselves,  resulting  from  their  light  to  change  the 
form  of  Government,  and  to  institute  a new  Govern- 
ment whenever  necessary  for  their  safety  and  happiness. 
So  the  Declaration  of  Independence  treats  it.  No  State 
had  presumed,  of  itself,  to  form  a new  Government,  or 
to  2)rovide  for  the  exigencies  of  the  times,  without  con- 
sulting Congress  on  the  subject;  and  when  they  acted, 
it  w’as  in  pursuance  of  the  recommendation  of  Congress. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


57 


It  was,  therefore,  the  achievement  of  the  whole  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole.  " * The  Declaration  of  In- 

dependence has,  accordingly,  always  been  treated  as  an 
act  of  Paramount  and  Sovereign  authority,  complete 
and  perfect,  per  se. 

I.  “The  separate  Independence  and  individual  Sover- 
eignty of  the  several  States  were  never  thought  of  by 
the  enlightened  band  of  patriots  who  framed  this  Dec- 
laration. Tne  several  States  are  not  even  mentioned  by 
name  in  any  part  of  it,  as  if  it  was  intended  to  impress 
the  maxim  on  America,  that  our  freedom  and  indepen- 
dence arose  from  our  Union,  etc. 

5.  “We  have  seen  that  the  power  to  do  this  act — de- 
clare Independence — w’as  not  derived  from  the  State 
Governments;  nor  was  it  done  generally  with  their  co- 
operation. The  question,  then,  naturally  presents  itself, 
if  it  is  to  be  considered  as  a National  act,  in  what  man- 
ner did  the  Colonies  become  a Nation,  and  in  what  man- 
ner did  Congress  become  possessed  of  this  National 
power  ? The  true  answer  must  be  that  as  soon  as  Con- 
gress assumed  powers,  and  passed  measures,  which  were, 
in  their  nature.  National,  to  that  extent,  the  People, 
from  whose  acquiescense  and  consent  they  took  effect, 
must  be  considered  as  agreeing  to  form  a Nation.”  * 

6.  “The  Constitution  is  not  a league,  confederacy,  or 

compact  beween  the  people  of  the  several  States  in  their 
sovereign  capacities;  but  in  the  ratifying  ordinances  of 
Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire  the  truth  is  recog- 
nized that  ‘ the  people  of  the  United  States  ’ entered 
‘ into  an  explicit  and  solemn  compact  with  each  other.  ’ 
It  is  the  People,  and  not  the  States,  who  have  entered 
into  the  compact ; and  it  is  the  People  of  all  the  United 
States  “ * * a social  compact.  No  man  can  get  over 

' Elliot’s  Debates,  Vol.  I.  pages  163-67. 


58 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


the  words,  ‘ We,  the  People  of  the  United  States,  do 
ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution.  ’ These  words 
must  cease  to  be  a part  of  the  Constitution  * * * 

before  any  human  ingenuity  or  human  argument  can 
remove  the  popular  basis  on  which  that  Constitution 
rests,  and  turn  the  instrument  into  a mere  compact  be- 
tween sovereign  States.  * * The  Constitution. 

Sir,  regards  itself  as  perpetual  and  immortal.  It  seeks 
to  establish  a Union  among  the  people  of  the  States,’’ 
etc. — Mr.  Webster’s  speech  in  the  Senate,  February  16, 
1833. 

Every  claim  of  these  authorities  is  negatived  by  the 
universally  accepted  definition  of  the  word  “ State  " 
among  English-speaking  people  before  and  during  our 
Eevolutionary  period ; but  if  the  reader  hesitates  to  ad- 
mit that  a mere  definition  can  weaken  a position 
assumed  by  such  distinguished  statesmen,  let  us  exam- 
ine the  propositions  they  lay  down  and  the  historical 
evidence  on  which  they  rely.  We  will  follow  the  fore- 
going order. 

1.  Nobody  ever  contended  that  the  Colonies  were,  in 
any  sense,  “independent  or  Sovereign  communities,"  or 
that  they  affected  “local  allegiance”;  and  the  apparent 
pretense  that  such  a claim  had  ever  been  set  up  tends, 
if  not  so  designed,  to  befog  the  whole  subject. 

But  it  is  true  that  each  one  of  the  Colonies,  after  July 
4,  1776,  did  “affect  local  allegiance.”  For  example,  the 
Constitution  of  Massachusetts,  adopted  in  1780,  required 
every  person  chosen  to  an  office,  whether  civil  or  mili- 
tary, to  swear  “true  faith  and  allegiance”  to  the 
Commonwealth;  which  oath  was  not  changed  when 
the  Constitution  was  amended  in  1822.  The  same  oath 
was  required  by  New  Hampshire  in  1792,  and  was  not 
stricken  out  of  her  Constitution  in  1852,  when  it  was 
amended. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


59 


It  would  have  been  suicidal  for  any  one  of  the  Col- 
onies to  declare  itself  independent  of  Great  Britain,  or 
even  for  half  of  them  to  do  so.  Cooperatio3i  was  nec- 
essary to  success.  But  the  contention  that  the  Declara- 
tion was  the  work  of  the  Eepresentatives  of  “ one  peo- 
ple ” who  possessed  “original,  inherent  Sovereignty,” 
while  in  their  separate  Colonies  temporary  governments 
had  been  adopted,  which  were  to  be  abandoned  on  a 
reconciliation  with  the  mother  country,  is  self-destruc- 
tive. How  all  the  people  could  be  “ Sovereign,”  while 
those  in  each  Colony  were  subject  to  the  Crown  of 
Great  Britain,  their  relations  being  only  temporarily 
suspended,  is  beyond  human  comprehension. 

The  truth  about  the  relations  and  the  actions  of  the 
separate  Colonies  is  clearly  set  forth  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in 
his  writings,  Volume  I,  page  10  (copied  in  Elliot’s  De- 
bates, Vol.  I,  pp.  56  et  seq.),  as  follows: 

“In  Congress,  Friday,  June  7,  1776.  The  delegates 
from  \Iirginia  moved,  in  obedience  to  instructions  from 
their  constituents,'  that  the  Congress  should  declare 
that  these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of  right,  ouglit  to 
be  free  and  independent  States,  etc. 

“ It  was  argued  by  Wilson  (Pennsylvania),  Robert  R. 
Livingston  (New  York),  E.  Rutledge  (South  Carolina), 
Dickinson  (Delaware),  and  others.  * * * that  the 

people  of  the  middle  Colonies  (Maryland,  Delaware, 

’ Judge  Story  and  other  consolidationists  have  confused  the  minds 
of  their  readers  by  irrelevant  distinctions  between  the  people  of  a 
State  and  the  government  oi  a State.  The  “constituents”  of  Jeffer- 
son, Lee,  etc.,  were  not  living  in  a state  of  anarchy;  they  had  a gov- 
ernment; and  whether  it  was  modeled  on  that  of  Great  Britain  or 
on  the  pure  democracy  of  Athens,  was  of  no  consequence. 

Another  Massachusetts  writer  makes  a distinction  between  the 
State  (the  soil,  climate,  etc.),  and  its  inhabitants,  thus:  “ The  Con- 
stitution was  not  adopted  by  the  State,  bnt  by  the  people  (iwelling 
in  the  State.”— William  Sullivan’s  Political  Class-Book,  revised  by 
George  B.  Emerson  (1831). 


60 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Penusylvauia,  the  Jerseys,  and  New  York;  were  not  yet 
ripe  for  bidding  adieu  to  British  connection,  but  that 
they  were  fast  ripening,  etc.  That  some  of  them  had 
expressly  forbidden  their  delegates  to  consent  to  such  a 
declaration,  and  others  had  given  no  instructions,  and 
consequently  no  power  to  give  snch  assent;  that,  if  the 
delegates  of  any  particular  Colony  had  no  power  to  de- 
clare such  Colony  independent,  certain  they  were,  the 
others  could  not  declare  it  for  them;  the  Colonies  being 
as  yet  perfectly  independent  of  each  other;  that  . the 
Assembly  of  Pennsylvania  was  now  sitting  above  stairs: 
their  Convention  would  sit  in  a few  days;  the  C-^onveu- 
tion  of  New  York  was  now  sitting:  and  those  of  the 
Jerseys  and  Delaware  counties  would  meet  on  Monday 
following;  and  it  was  probable  these  lioclies  would  take 
up  the  question  of  independence,  and  wmuld  declare  to 
their  delegates  the  voice  of  their  State. 

“That,  if  such  a declaration  should  now  be  agreed  to. 
these  delegates  must  retire,  and  possibly  their  Colonies 
might  sr'cede  from  the  Union  ‘ - * Tt  appearing 

in  the  course  of  these  debates  that  the  Colonies  of  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania.  Delaware,  j\Iaryland 
and  South  Carolina  ^ were  not  yet  matured  for  falling 
from  the  parent  stem,  but  that  they  were  fast  advancing 
to  that  state,  it  was  thought  most  prudent  to  wait  a 
while  for  them,  and  to  postpone  the  final  decision  to 
July  1 ; but  that  this  might  occasion  as  little  delay  as 
possible,  a committee  was  appointed  (June  11)  to  pre- 
pare a Declaration  of  Independence.  The  committee 

’Since  the  Colonies  were  “ as  yet  perfectly  independent  of  each 
other,  ” it  is  not  clear  how  any  one  of  them  could  ‘‘secede  from  the 
Union.” 

^ “ Maryland  and  South  Carolina  had  joined  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  without  any  crying  grievances  of  their  own.” — Fiske's 
Critical  Period,  etc.,  page  92. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


61 


were  John  Adams,  Dr.  Franklin,  Eoger  Sherman, 
Eobert  E.  Livingston  and  Thomas  Jefferson.  Com- 
mittees were  also  appointed,  at  the  same  time,  to  prepare 
a plan  of  Confedts ration  of  the  Colonies,  and  to  state  the 
terms  propei’  to  be  proposed  for  foreign  alliances.  * * * 
“On  Monday,  the  1st  of  July,  the  House  resolved  itself 
into  a Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  resumed  the  con- 
sideration of  the  original  motion  made  by  the  delegates 
of  Virginia,  which  being  .again  debated  through  the 
day,  was  carried  in  the  affirmative  by  the  votes  of  New 
Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts,  Ehode  Island, 
New  Jersey,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and 
Georgia.  South  Carolina  and  Pennsylvania*  voted 
against  it.  Delaware  had  but  two  members  pres- 
ent, and  they  were  divided.  The  delegates  from  New 
York  declared  they  were  for  it  themselves,  and  were 
assured  their  constituents  were  for  it;  hut  that  their  in- 
structions having  been  drawn  near  a tAvelvemonth  be- 
fore, when  reconciliation  was  still  the  general  object, 
they  v/ere  enjoined  by  them  to  do  nothing  which  should 
impede  that  object.  They,  therefore,  thought  them- 
selves not  justifiable  in  voting  on  eithei-  side.  * " 

Mr.  Edward  Eutledge,  of  South  Carolina,  then  requested 
the  determination  (in  the  House)  might  be  put  off  to 
the  next  day,  as  he  believed  his  colleagues,  though  they 


’ In  an  acldress  to  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,  James  AVilson,  one 
of  the  delegates  from  that  State,  said:  ‘When  the  measure'’ (the 
Peclaration  of  Independence)  “ began  to  be  an  object  of  contem- 
plation in  Congress,  the  delegates  of  Pennsylvania  were  expressly 
restricted  from  consenting  to  it.  My  uniform  language  in  Congress 
was,  that  I never  would  vote  for  it,  contrary  to  my  Instructions.  I 
went  further,  and  declared  that  I never  would  vote  for  it,  without 
your  authority.  * * * When  your  authority  was  communicated 
by  the  conference  of  Committees  from  the  several  counties  of  the 
State,  I then  stood  upon  very  different  grounds : I declared  so  in 
Congress.  I spok(  and  voted  for  the  measure.” 


62 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


disapproved  of  the  resolution,  would  then  join  in  it  for 
the  sake  of  unanimity  ^ * -x-  * jjj  meantime,  a 

third  member  had  come  post  from  the  Delaware  coun- 
ties, and  turned  the  vote  of  that  Colony.  * 

Members  of  a different  sentiment  attending  that  morn- 
ing from  Pennsylvania  also,  her  vote  was  changed,  etc., 
so  that  the  whole  twelve  Colonies,  who  ivere  authorized 
to  vote  at  alt,  gave  their  voices  for  it;  and  within  a few 
days  (July  9th)  the  Convention  of  New  York  approved 
of  it,  and  thus  supplied  the  void  occasioned  by  the  with- 
drawing of  her  delegates  from  the  vote. 

“ Congress  proceeded  the  same  day  to  consider  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.” 

There  seems,  therefore,  no  basis  for  the  assertion  that 
“the  Colonies  did  not  severally  act  for  themselves." 
And  as  to  their  having  no  goveruraents,  Jefferson's  tes- 
timony is  decisive. 

3.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was  ’■'an  act  done 
by  * * persons  chosen  by''  ’"the  State  Govern- 

ments'"and  the  doctrine  of  ”qui  facit  per  cdium  facit 
jjer  .se,  ” applies  here  as  it  does  to  the  responsibility  of 
any  other  employer. 

They  were  not  chosen,  it  is  true,  by  the  Charter  Gov- 
ernments— it  has  never  been  pretended  that  they  were; 
they  were  chosen  in  each  Colony  by  legislative  bodies 
elected  by  the  people  for  this  and  other  purposes.  In 
North  Carolina,  for  example,  John  Harvey,  Moderator 


1 It  appears  that  the  delegates  from  Delaware  and  South  Carolina 
had  no  positive  histructions.  but  were  permitted  to  exercise  their 
own  judgment  in  emergencies  like  this.  Those  from  South  Caro- 
lina, it  is  probable,  were  hurried  into  harmony  by  Sh-  Henry  Clin- 
ton’s invasion  of  their  State.  It  has  been  said  by  respectable  au- 
thorities that  the  course  of  these  as  well  as  of  other  delegates  was 
determined  by  the  repulse  (June  28)  of  Sir  Heiu'y’s  army  and  Sh- 
Peter  Parker’s  fleet ; but  it  is  not  probable  that  news  could  have 
gone  from  Charleston  to  Philadelphia  in  six  days. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


63 


of  the  body  which  had,  in  1774,  elected  Joseph  Hewes, 
William  Hooper  and  Richard  Caswell  to  represent  the 
Colony  in  the  Continental  Congress,  issued  a notice  to 
the  people  of  the  Colony,  in  February,  1775,  asking 
them  to  elect  delegates  to  represent  each  town  ( borough ) 
and  county  in  a Convention.  The  Convention  met  in 
Newbern,  April  1,  1775,  the  same  day  on  which  the 
Colonial  Assembly  met,  many  gentlemen  being  mem- 
bers of  both  bodies.  Governor  Josiah  Martin  soon  dis- 
solved the  Colonial  Assembly,  and  the  Colony  never 
again  saw  a legislative  body  meet  under  the  direction  of 
a Royal  Governor;  the  people  were  thenceforth  gov- 
erned by  themselves ; and  although  they  had  no  written 
Constitution  till  December,  1776.  it  would  be  as  absurd 
to  say  that  they  had  no  Government  during  this  inter- 
val as  it  would  to  assert  the  same  thing  of  England, 
which  has  never  had  a written  Constitution.  On  Au- 
gust 21,  1775,  another  legislative  body,  composed  of  184 
members,  met  in  Hillsboro,  appointed  a Provincial 
Council  for  the  State,  a District  Committee  for  each 
District,  County  and  Town  Committees  for  each  county 
and  town,  raised  two  regiments  of  500  men  each,  emit- 
ted $125, OOo  in  bills  on  the  credit  of  the  State,  passed 
an  act  empowering  the  Provincial  Council  to  enforce  &n 
oath  of  allegiance  on  suspects,'  and  did  every  other 
thing  which  any  government  could  have  done.  The 
next  legislative  body  met  at  Halifax  on  the  4th  of  April, 
1776,  and  among  other  things  it  did,  it  passed  unani- 
mously the  following  resolution : ‘‘That  the  Delegates 
from  this  Colony  in  the  Continental  Congress  be  em- 

’ Thus  “affecting  local  allegiance”  nearly  a twelvemonth  before 
the  date  of  the  Declaration’of  Independence.  “They”  (the  commit- 
tees of  the  counties),  says  Wheeler  “had  a test  oath  to  which  all 
persons  had  to  subscribe,  which  was  paramount  to  the  oath  of  alle 
giance  to  the  English  Crown.” — Wheeler,  Series  I,  Chapter  IX. 


(U  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 

powered  to  concur  with  the  delegates  from  the  other 
Colonies,  in  declaring  Independence  forming  foreign 
alliances;  reserving  to  this  Colony  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive right  of  forming  a constitution  and  laws  foi-  this 
Colony.’’' — Colonial  Records,  X,  512. 

d.  “The  several  States  are  not  even  mentioned  by 
name  in  any  part  of”  the  Declaration  for  the  very  rea- 
son which  caused  them  to  be  stricken  out  of  the  Consti- 
tution after  “ ^ye,  the  people”;  it  was  not  known  by 
the  committee  appointed  June  the  11th  to  draft  the 
Declaration  whether  all  the  Colonies  would  approve  it: 
and  the  hope  that  Canada  would  ultimately  “ join  in  the 
measures”  of  the  thirteen  Colonies  rendered  it  improper 
to  name  them  aud  leave  her  out.  This  omission  is  not 
of  the  least  significance  as  a support  to  the  " one  peo- 
ple” theory,  since  the  right  ”of  these  Colonies  to  alter 
their  former  systems  (plural)  of  government"  w'as  rec- 
ognized and  demanded  in  the  Declaration — evidently 
excluding  the  idea  that  the  Declaration  was  desigiied  to 
dethrone  George  III  aud  enthrone  “one  people." 

As  to  the  claim  that  “the  separate  Independence  aud 
individual  Sovereignty  of  the  several  States  were  never 
thought  of  by  the  enlightened  band  of  patriots  who 
framed  this  Declaration.”  its  utter  want  of  support  is 
shown  by  the  second  Article  of  the  Ai tides  of  Confed- 
eration framed  by  a committee  appointed  hv  this  “ en- 
lightened baud  of  patriots,’'  agreed  to  by  them  or  their 
successors,  and  by  all  the  States.  It  is: 

“ Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  in- 
dependence, and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  aud  right 
which  is  not  by  this  confederation  expressly  delegated 
to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled." 

This  was  an  iudisputable  recognition  of  the  “ Inde- 

' This  was  passed  on  the  12th  of  April,  28  days  before  the  Conti- 
nenlal  Congress  advised  the  Colonies  to  adopt  Constitutions! 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


65 


pendence  and  individual  Sovereignty  ” of  each  State, 
since  it  could  not  “retain”  what  did  not  belong  to  it. 

5.  There  is  not  a syllable  nor  a hint  anywhere  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  that  it  was  intended  to 
merge  the  peoples  of  thirteen  free,  sovereign  and  inde- 
pendent States  into  a Nation ; nor  was  there  any  assump- 
tion of  sovereign  powers  by  the  Continental  Congress, 
since  the  delegation  from  each  Colony  was  empowered 
by  its  Colony  to  exercise  all  the  powers  necessary  and 
proper  for  the  conduct  of  the  war  and  foreign  inter- 
course. And  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  second 
Article,  quoted  above,  is  so  absolutely  inconsistent  with 
the  theory  of  the  consolidationists,  that  they  hardly  de- 
serve a respectful  refutation.* 

6.  The  answer  to  Mr.  Webster  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  and 
the  complete  overthrow  of  his  political  doctrine,  by 
quoting  his  own  former  uttei’ances  (always  scrupulously 
ignored  and  excluded  by  Northern  compilers  of  school 
readers,  speakers.  Union  text-books,  etc.),  may  profi- 
tably be  imitated  here.  In  June,  1851,  Mr.  M^ebster 
delivered  an  address  at  Capon  Springs,  Va.,  in  which  he 
said ; 

“I  have  not  hesitated  to  say,  and  I repeat,  that,  if  the 
Northern  States  refuse,  willfully  and  deliberately,  to 
carry  into  effect  that  part  of  the  Constitution  which 
respects  the  restoration  of  fugitive  slaves,  and  Congress 
provide  no  remedy,  the  South  would  no  longer  be  bound 


'One  of  the  most  glaring  non-sequiturs  in  all  the  writings  of  the 
consolidationists  occurs  on  page  525  of  Bancroft’s  fourth  v^olume,  as 
follows:  “On  the  24th  (.June)  Congress  ‘ resolved  that  all  persons 
abiding  within  any  of  the  united  Colonies,  and  deriving  protection 
from  its  laws,  owe  allegiance  to  the  said  laws,  and  are  members  of 
such  Colony’;  and  it  charged  the  guilt  of  treason  upon  ‘ all  mem- 
bers of  any  of  the  united  Colonies  who  .should  be  adherent  to  the 
King  of  Great  Britain,  giving  to  him  aid  and  comfort.’  The  fellow- 


5 


66 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


to  observe  the  compact.  A bargain  can  not  be  broken 
on  one  side,  and  still  bind  the  other  side.”  ^ 

Mr.  Calhoun’s  quotations  from  Mr.  AYebster’s  former 
speeches,  and  this  subsequent  utterance  at  Capon  Springs 
indicate  a temporary  confusion  of  thought  in  1833,  in 
the  midst  of  the  dangers  to  the  Union  which  protection 
to  New* *  England’s  manufacturers  had  caused. 

But  even  if  there  were  no  reason  to  charge  Mr.  Meh- 
ster  with  inconsistency,  he  is  not  supported  by  the  evi- 
dence he  adduces;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  against  him. 
“ The  people  of  the  United  States  ” in  the  ratifying  or- 
dinances of  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts,  to  which 
he  refers,  meant  the  people  of  the  thirteen  free,  sover- 
eign, independent,  and  separate  States,  each  State  hav- 
ing retained  its  “ sovereignty,  freedom  and  independ- 
ence” in  the  Union.  Such  were  “the  people  of  the 
United  States  ” at  that  time,  and  it  was  a remarkable 
distortion  of  the  import  of  the  phrase  to  make  it  equiv- 
alent to  “one  people”  or  Nation. ^ 

His  appeal  to  the  “ M^e,  the  people  ’’  in  the  i)reamble 
of  the  Constitution  is  as  unavailing  as  that  to  the  ordi- 
nances of  New  Hampshire  and  Ylassachusetts ; it  indi- 
cates an  inexcusably  superficial  examination  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution.  Whenever  nine  States  rati- 
fied the  Constitution,  it  was  to  be  a “ Constitution  be- 
tween”— not /or,  or  o/,  ov  among — “the  States ’’-—not 
people — -“so  ratifying  the  same.” 

Even  this  little  preposition  ‘ ‘ between,  ‘ ’ which  is  a 
compound  of  the  old  preposition  he,  wdiich  signifies  at. 
in,  or  by,  and  the  numeral  adjective  tween,  w'hich  signi- 
fies twain,  twin,  or  two,  not  only  disposes  of  the  “ one 

subjects  of  one  king  became  fellow-lieges  cf  one  I’epublic.  They  all 
had  one  la,w  of  citizenship  and  one  law  of  treason." 

* Curtis’s  Life  of  Webster,  Volume  II.  pages  518-519. 

^ See  Note  F. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


people  ’ ’ doctrine ; but  it  clearly  demonstrates  that  the 
compact  was  between  two  parties,  each  State  being  one 
of  them  and  its  co-States  the  other.  If  this  is  untrue, 
the  statesmen  of  1787  were  ignorant  of  the  meaning  of 
between.  * 

Thus  it  is  beyond  question  that,  if  we  are  guided  by 
the  accepted  definitions  of  words,  the  recognized  canons 
of  interpretation  of  language,  and  the  recorded  acts  of 
deliberative  bodies,  there  is  not  even  a shadow  of  a 
foundation  for  the  contention  that  the  peoples  of  the 
several  States  were  ever  consolidated  into  a Nation,  or 
‘‘one  people” ; and  it  is  among  the  marvels  of  this  cen- 
tury that  any  intelligent  man  could  derive  such  a doc- 
trine from  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  or  the  Constitution.  And  the  marvel 
grows  when  we  find  this  absurd  definition  of  “ State  ” 
in  all  the  editions  of  Webster’s  Dictionary  published 
since  1861:  “In  the  United  States  one  of  the  Common- 
wealths^ or  bodies  politic,  the  people  of  which  make  up 
the  body  of  the  Nation,  and  which,  under  the  National 
Constitution,  stand  in  certain  specified  relations  with 
the  National  Government,  and  are  invested,  as  Common- 
wealths, with  full  power  in  their  several  spheres,  over 
all  matters  not  expressly  inhibited." 


^The  consolidationists  at  an  early  date  (Mr.  Webster,  e.  g.,  at  the 
laying-  of  the  Comer  Stone  of  the  Bunker  Hill  Monument,  on  June 
17,  1825)  substituted  “over”  for  “between,”  and  to-day  very  few 
people  have  the  courage  to  deny  that  the  Government  is  “over”  the 
States. 

'^This  word  “ commonwealth  ” was  substituted  by  the  Puritans  of 
England  for  “kingdom,”  being  the  English  equivalent  for  the  Latin 
RespuMica;  and  the  change  was  made  because  there  was  a change 
in  the  source  of  political  power,  the  freedom,  sovereignty  and  inde- 
pendence of  England  not  being  affected.  Thence  it  was  imported 
into  these  Colonies  in  1776,  and  adopted  by  some  of  them.  It  was  a 
specific  title,  while  “State”  was  general;  but  both,  in  political  no- 
menclature, implied  nothing  less  than  absolute  autonomy. 


68 


THE  SOUTH  AC4AINST  THE  NORTH. 


Note  P. 

The  flag’  of  the  United  States  preserves  the  truth  as  to  the  “one 
people”  doctrine.  On  June  14,  1777,  the  Congress  which  submitted 
the  Articles  to  the  States,  passed  this  resolution;  “ That  the  flag  of 
the  thirteen  United  States  be  thirteen  stripes,  alternate  red  and 
white,  with  thirteen  stars,  white  in  a blue  field,  representing  a new 
constellation.”  Afterwards  the  stars  in  the  ’‘new  constellation” 
were  increased  as  new  States  were  added  to  the  Union,  the  fir.st  act 
of  the  Congress  prov  iding  for  such  increase  being  passed  April  4. 
1818.  • 

It  was  a union  of  separate  and  sovereign  States,  bound  together 
by  the  ties  of  mutual  interest  and  for  mutual  defense,  the  same  ties 
which  bound  them  under  the  Articles  and  under  the  Constitution. 
Such  was  the  significance  of  the  flag  in  the  beginning,  and  nothing 
has  happened  since  to  impart  any  other  significance  to  it.  If  this  is 
not  true,  the  stars  should  have  been  long  ago  removed  from  it  and 
the  population  of  the  "Naticn”  substituted  for  them,  the  thirteen 
stripes  remaining  to  remind  us  of  the  time  when  the  United  States 
“were.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


69 


CHAPTER  V. 

NEW  ENGLAND’S  SHIPPING  INTERESTS. 

“ It  was  easy  to  foresee,  what  we  know  also  to  have 
happened,  that  the  first  great  cause  of  collision  and  jeal- 
ousy would  lie,  under  the  notion  of  political  economy 
then  and  still  prevalent  in  Enrope,  an  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  mother  country  to  monopolize  the  trade  of 
the  Colonies.  * * * 

“The  second  century  opened  upon  New  England 
under  circumstances  which  evinced  that  much  had 
already  been  accomplished.  * 

“ The  commercial  character  of  the  country,  notwith- 
standing all  discouragements,  had  begun  to  display  itself, 
and  /ipe  hundred  vessels,  then  belonging  to  Massachu- 
setts, placed  her,  in  relation  to  commerce,  thus  early  at 
the  head  of  the  'Colonies.” — Webster’s  Plymouth  Ad- 
dress, December  22,  1820. 

Having  brought  the  record  of  events  up  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  new  government,  we  need  to  be  somewhat 
familiar  with  the  different  interests  of  the  different  sec- 
tions of  the  Union,  which  could  be  benefited  or  injured 
by  Congressional  legislation.  We  begin  with  New  Eng- 
land’s shipping  interests,  because  they  were  among  the 
first  to  ask  for  special  favors,  and  to  sow  the  seeds  of 
that  sectional  conflict  which  produced  the  war  between 
the  Northern  and  the  Southern  States. 

The  people  who  came  over  and  settled  in  Massachu- 
setts in  1620-’23,  had  spent  from  eleven  to  fifteen  years 
in  Leyden,  the  oldest  city  in  Holland,  containing  at  that 
time  about  one  hundred  thousand  inhabitants,  engaged 
in  manufacturing,  ship-building,  foreign  commerce,  and 
domestic  trade. 

The  historians  tell  us  that;  “At  the  end  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  the  Dutch  gained  the  possession  of  the 


70 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Molucca  Islands,  and  secured  a monopoly  of  the  spice 
trade.  At  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  they 
owned  nearly  half  of  the  shipping  of  Europe.”  They 
also  tell  us  that:  “Living  along  the  estuaries  of  rivers 
abounding  in  fish,  ” they  “soon  became  a sea-faring  peo- 
ple, ” while  “manufactures  flourished  in  a remarkable 
degree.  ’ ’ The  intelligence,  the  skill,  the  enterprise,  the 
industry,  and  the  thrift  of  those  people  commanded  the 
admiration,  and  in  some  quarters  excited  the  jealousy 
of  their  contemporaries ; and  the  spirit  and  temper  of 
the  Leydeners  had  found  expression,  33  years  before 
the  Puritan  “ Separatists”  landed  there,  in  the  establish- 
ment of  their  famous  University,  to  which  gathered 
Europe’s  most  renowned  teachers  of  letters,  art,  and 
science. 

These  Englishmen,  spending  so  long  a time  in  such  a 
city,  amazed,  no  doubt,  at  the  marvelous  results  of  the 
skill  and  enterprise  of  the  Dutch,  could  not  fail  to  profit 
by  what  they  witnessed.  Hence,  after  landing  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  familiarizing  themselves  with  their  envi- 
ronment, they  soon  began  to  put  their  acquired  knowl- 
edge to  practical  use,  stimulated  hr  the  ambition  which 
contact  with  the  Dutch  had  engendered.  They  estab- 
lished schools  and  set  their  daughters  to  teaching,  in 
order  that  they  might  give  to  their  children  some  of 
that  intellectual  culture  which  had  evidently  been  the 
mainspring  of  Holland's  success  and  of  Leyden's  phe- 
nomenal wealth ; and  they  put  their  sons  to  farming, 
to  fishing,  to  ship-huilding,  to  trading,  and  to  manufac- 
turing, their  skill  in  the  latter  becoming  famous  in  after 
times  by  their  reputed  success  in  the  production  of  tin 
mirrors,  basswood  hams,  and  wooden  nutmegs ! * 

' “William  Kieft  * * * determined  * * to  flood  the  streets 
of  New  Amsterdam  with  Indian  money.  This  was  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  strmgs  of  beads  wrought  out  of  clams,  periwinkles. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


71 


Of  the  beginning  and  progress  of  ship -building  in 
New  England,  in  the  earlj  days,  our  historians  give  us 
few  records ; but  from  these  few  we  may  infer  that  the 
business  was  extensive  and  prosperous. 

In  1634  Cradock  had  a ship-yard  at  Medford;  Win- 
throp  had  the  Blessing  of  the  Bay  built  at  his  expense ; 
the  Rebecca  was  built  about  the  same  time;  a trade  in. 
corn  and  cattle  had  commenced  with  Virginia,  includ- 
ing Carolina;  and  West  India  products — sugar,  molasses 
and  mm — were  exchanged  for  furs  with  the  Dutch  of 
New  York.^ 

In  this  same  year  (1634)  Captain  Stone  and  Captain 
Norton  commanded  trading  vessels  on  the  Connecticut 
River.  In  1636  Captain  Oldham  commanded  a trading 
vessel  on  the  same  river;  and  during  this  yea.r  the  first 
New  England  slave-ship,  the  Desire,  was  built  at  Mar- 
blehead, and  entered  upon  that  inhuman  traffic,  which 
was  kept  up  till  May,  186‘2.  ^ 


and  other  shell -fish,  and  called  * * * wainpnm.  * * * He 

began  by  paying  all  the  servants  of  the  company,  and  all  the  debts 
of  Government,  in  strings  of  wampum.  * * * 

For  a time  affairs  went  on  swimmingly.  * * * Yankee  traders 
poured  into  the  Province,  buying  everything  they  could  lay  their 
hands  on,  and  paying  the  worthy  Dutchmen  their  owm  price — in 
Indian  money.  If  the  latter,  however,  attempted  to  pay  the  Yan- 
kees in  the  same  coin  for  their  tinware  and  wooden  bowls,  the  case 
was  altered;  nothing  would  do  but  Dutch  guilders  and  such  like 
‘metallic  currency.’  What  was  worse,  the  Yankees  introduced  an 
inferior  kind  of  wampum  made  of  oyster-shells,  with  which  they 
deluged  the  Province,  carying  oft'  in  exchange  all  the  silver  and 
gold,  the  Dutch  herrings,  and  Dutch  cheeses:  thus  early  did  the 
knowing  men  of  the  East  manifest  their  skill  in  bargaining  the 
NeW'Amsterdamers  out  of  the  oyster,  and  leaving  them  the  shell.” 
— Knickerbocker’s  New  York,  pages  224-225. 

'Hildreth,  Volume  I,  page  200. 

Naval  War  Records,  Volume  I,  pages  12,  24,  366,  367. 


73 


THE  SOUTH  AGAIXST  THE  NORTH. 


In  1643,  according  to  Hildreth,'  their  ships  carried 
cargoes  of  staves  and  fish — the  manufacture  of  rum  did 
not  begin  till  1733 — to  Madeira  and  the  Canaries;  and 
on  these  trips  they  were  accustomed  to  touch  on  the 
coast  of  Guinea  “to  trade  for  negroes,”  whom  they 
generally  carried  to  Barbadoes  and  other  English  islands 
in  the  West  Indies,  “the  demand  for  them  at  home  be- 
ing small.  ’ ’ 

In  this  same  year  (1643)  six  large  ships  were  com- 
pleted at  Salem.  2 

Ship-huilding,  indeed,  soon  became  the  leading  indus- 
try in  all  the  seaboard  towns,  and  continued  so  for  about 
one  hundred  and  seventy  years,  when  “ protection  ” 
rendered  manufacturing  equally  remunerative.  The 
ships  were  built  for  the  whale,  mackerel,  and  cod  fishe- 
ries, for  inland,  coastwise,  and  foreign  commerce,  for  the 
African  slave  trade,  and  for  sale.  For  the  ship  market 
so  many  were  built  that  in  1737  the  “ship  carpenters  in 
the  Thames  complained  that  their  trade  was  hurt,  and 
their  workmen  emigrated.”" 

For  about  a century  and  a half  those  industrious  peo 
pie  enjoyed  almost  a monopoly,  in  these  Colonies,  of  the 
carrying  trade,  except  when  interfered  with  by  restri(?- 
tions  imposed  by  the  mother  State,  since  there  was 
never  any  competition  attempted- by  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  till  near  the  close  of  that  period,  nor  by 
the  seaports  south  of  Philadelphia  till  after  the  Revolu- 
tion.^ 

' Volume  I,  page  282. 

^ Ibid.,  page  331. 

® Hildreth,  Volume  II,  page  29T. 

* In  CarrolTs  Historical  Collections  of  South  Carolina  there  is  a pa- 
per which  was  published  in  London  in  1761,  wherein,  after  giving 
an  account  of  the  trade  of  Charleston,  the  author  (believed  to  have 
been  Governor  Glen)  said:  “ But  with  all  this  trade  we  have  few  or 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


73 


After  the  Ee\^olution,  of  which  British  restrictions  on 
New  England’s  commercial  interests  were  the  prime 
cause,  “free  trade  and  sailors’  rights”  followed,  with 
corresponding  benefits  to  those  interests;  and  special 
priv^ileges  were  secured,  in  the  treaty  of  peace,  to  their 
fishermen  on  the  Banks  of  Newfoundland  and  in  the 
Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence. 

After  the  breaking  out  of  the  war  and  the  consequent 
disturbances  of  commerce,  much  of  the  money  made  by 
the  slave  trade  and  other  commercial  operations  was 
invested  in  manufacturing  and  mechanical  trades  to  fill 
army  contracts  and  supply  the  wants  of  the  people; 
another  portion  was  employed  in  speculating  in  Conti- 
nental and  State  securities,  including  the  bills  of  credit; 
another  was  devoted  to  privateering  enterpises;  and 
another  to  traffic  with  the  soldeirs. 

After  the  war  was  over  commerce  resumed  its  old 
importance,  stimulated  to  vigorous  expansion  by  the 
preferences  accorded  to  it  because  of  the  bitter  memo- 
ries of  Britain’s  aggressions;  and  up  to  the  formation 
of  the  more  perfect  Union,  it  would  not  be  far  from  the 
truth  to  declare  that  New  England’s  shipping  interests 
enjoyed  almost  as  many  monopolistic  privileges  as  were 
afterwards  conferred  on  them  by  acts  of  Congress. 

The  result  up  to  1786  is  thus  given  by  Elildreth.  Vol- 
ume III,  pages  465-66 ; 

“ One  large  portion  of  the  wealthy  men  of  Colonial 
times  had  been  expatriated,  and  another  part  had  been 
impoverished  by  the  Revolution.^  In  their  place  a new 
moneyed  class  had  sprung  up,  especially  in  the  Eastern 

no  ships  of  our  own.  We  depend  in  a great  measure  upon  those  sent 
from  Great  Britain,  or  on  such  as  are  built  in  New  England  for 
British  merchants,  and  which  g’enerally  take  this  Country  in  on  their 
way  to  get  a freight  to  England.” 

' See  Note  G. 


74 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


States,  men  who  had  grown  rich  in  the  coarse  of  the 
war  as  suttlers,  by  privateering,  by  speculations  in  the 
fluctuating  paper  money,  and  by  other  operations  not 
always  of  the  most  honorable  kind.  Large  claims 
ggainst  their  less  fortunate  neighbors  had  accumulated 
in  the  hands  of  these  men,  many  of  whom  were  dis- 
posed to  press  their  legal  rights  to  the  utmost.  The 
sudden  fortunes  made  by  the  war,”  ‘ etc. 

But,  while  giving  the  result,  Hildreth  omits  one  of 
the  essential  causes.  This  is  supplied  by  a Hew  Eug- 
lauder  (probably  J.  Q.  Adams),  Avho.  under  the  noin  de 
plume  of  Algernon  Sidney,  addressed  “au  appeal  to  the 
people  of  New  England,”  December  15,  1808  (printed 
as  a public  document  in  State  Papers,  2d  sess..  10th 
Cong.  ),  designed  to  reconcile  them  to  the  non-inter- 
course acts  of  Jefferson’s  Administration.  Among  other 
things  he  said;  “Eecur  to  the  period  between  peace  and 
the  present  Government.  Did  not  the  commercial  States 
enrich  themselves  at  the  expense  of  the  agricultural?  ” 

The  freeing  of  the  commerce  of  these  people  from 
British  restrictions  and  the  securing  of  privileges  to 
their  fishermen  ought,  one  would  suppose,  to  have  been 
enough ; but  they  Avanted  more,  and,  as  soon  as  the 
Federal  Government  was  empowered  in  the  Constitu- 
tion to  regulate  commerce  and  to  lay  taxes  on  imported 
goods,  they  applied  through  their  representatives  for 
greater  privileges ; and  they  receiA'ed  them.  An  abso- 
lute monopoly  of  the  coastwise  trade  was  conferred  on 
ships  built  in  the  United  States,  Avith  the  privilege  of 
adjusting  freight  and  passenger  rates  to  suit  the  own- 
ers; a discriminating  tonnage  tax  was  imposed  on  all 

^The  Atlantic  Monthly  for  December.  1897.  says  that  one  of  the 
signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  took  “advantage  of  in- 
formaion  of  the  needs  of  the  Continental  cause  for  wheat  to  corner 
the  supply  at  once  so  far  as  he  was  able.’' 


THE  SOUTPI  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


75 


foreign  ships  engaged  in  carrying  goods  to  or  from  these 
States ; a discriminating  tariff  tax  was  imposed  on  all 
articles  imported  into  these  States  in  foreign  ships; 
ship- builders  in  the  United  States  were  granted  an  ab- 
solute monopoly  of  the  “home  market”  for  ships;  and 
New  England’s  cod-fishermen  were  quartered  on  the 
taxpayers  of  all  the  States. 

Such  favoritism  as  this,  bestowed  mainly  on  a people 
unsurpassed  in  the  United  States  for  intelligence,  skill, 
and  energy,  bore  its  legitimate  fruits; 

1.  The  victims  of  this  paternalism  began  to  ask  what 
had  become  of  the  “justice”  promised  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  resulting  sense  of  wrong  passed  from  father 
to  son  long  after  the  occasion  of  it  was  forgotten ; and 

2.  By  1810*  the  shippers  of  the  United  States  con- 
trolled a greater  proportion  of  the  world’s  carrying  trade 
than  either  Holland  or  England.^ 


* Twenty  one  yeai’s  of  paternalism  ran  up  the  tonnage  in  the  follow- 
ing’ States,  vessels  under  20  tons  being  omitted,  to  the  figures  in  the 
table: 

Massachusetts,  -----  - 483,509  tons 

New  York,  ......  272,473  “ 

Pennsynania,  -----  - 123,883 

Maryland,  ......  136,292  “ 

Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  181,972  “ 
This  was  about  eight  times,  on  an  average,  what  the  tonnage  of 
these  States  was  in  1789. 

But  the  principal  beneficiaries  of  the  favoritism  can  only  be  dis- 
covered by  comparing  tonnage  with  x^opulation.  This  comparison 
gives  per  1,000  persons — 

In  Massachusetts,  - • - ■ - 1,024.25  tons 

“ New  York,  - - - - ■ 284.  “ 

“ Pennsylvania,  • - - - 152.9  “ 

“ Maryland,  353,  “ 

“ Virginia  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, and  Georgia,  82.8  “ 

— (See  State  Papers,  Commerce  and  Navigation,  Vol.  I,  pp.  896-901). 

^ Smith’s  Wealth  of  Nations,  American  Edition,  Volume  I,  page 
266,  foot  note. 


76 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


It  is  Qot  necessary,  in  closing  this  chapter,  to  enlarge 
on  the  interests  of  other  classes  of  the  people.  It  is 
well  known  that  agriculture  was  the  principal  business 
of  an  overwhelming  majority  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  and  for  several  decades  after- 
wards; and,  furthermore,  that  diversification  of  employ- 
ments was  confined  almost  exclusively  to  the  Northern 
States,  with  the  result,  at  an  early  day,  that  the  sur- 
plus crops  of  their  farmers  were  consumed  hy  those 
engaged  in  other  occupations,  while  the  Southern 
farmers  were  obliged  to  seek  a market  for  most  of  their 
surplus  in  foreign  lands.  ^ It  was  impossible,  therefore, 
for  them  to  quarter  themselves  on  the  taxpayers  of  the 
Union  unless  they  could  have  prevailed  on  the  Congress 
to  give  them  bounties  out  of  the  Federal  treasury.  This 
they  never  applied  for,  because  they  inherited  a respect 
for  the  Constitutiou  which,  they  very  well  knew,  con- 
ferred no  such  power  on  the  Congress. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  South  was  subjected 
to  two  "wrongs  by  operation  of  Federal  laws; 

1.  Foreign  prices  had  to  be  accepted  for  her  crops 
-whether  sold  abroad  or  in  the  United  States,  and  tariff 
laws  compelled  her  to  purchase  her  supplies  of  manu- 
factured articles  at  prices  considerably  above  those 
charged  in  foi'eign  markets;  and 

2.  Every  act  of  Congress  designed  to  counteract  hos- 
tile commercial  legislation  by  any  foreign  government — 
most  of  the  tariff  acts  included — led  to  further  restric- 
tions on  exports  from  the  United  States,  of  which  the 

' In  the  Convention  of  17S7  Mr.  Madison,  on  June  28,  said:  " The 
staple  of  Massachusetts  is  fish  and  the  carrying  trade;  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, wheat  and  flour;  of  Virginia,  tobacco 'q  and  on  the  next 
day  he  said;  “ The  great  danger  to  our  general  government  is  the 
great  Southern  and  Northern  interests  of  the  continent  being  op- 
posed to  each  other.'’ — Yates. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


77 


South  furnished  from  80  to  90  per  cent.  In  other  words, 
every  movement  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  check  im- 
ports of  foreign  manufactures  has  been  met  by  real  or 
threatened  restrictions  on  our  exports  of  agricultural 
products.  In  later  years  this  retaliatory  spirit  has  dis- 
covered trichinosis  in  the  pork  and  tuberculosis  in  the 
beef  exported  from  the  United  States. 

The  farmers  and  other  producers  of  provisions  and 
other  raw  material  in  the  South  were,  therefore,  kept 
between  the  upper  and  the  nether  millstone — the  do- 
mestic manufacturer  and  the  foreign  farmer. 


Note  G. 


The  comparative  wealth  of  the  two  sections  before  the  Revolution 
can  be  aijproximately  arrived  at  from  the  exports  to  Great  Britain. 
Hildreth,  Volume  II,  page  559,  says:  “The  trade  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  Colonies  is  stated  for  the  year  1770,  as  follows,  and 
the  average  for  the  last  ten  years,  allowing  for  a moderate  increase, 
had  not  been  matei’ially  different : 


EXPORTS  TO  GREAT  BRITAIX. 


New"  England. 

New  York. 
Pennsylvania, 

Virginia  and  Maryland, 
Carolinas, 

Georgia, 


$657,168 

310,276 

124,802 

1,931,801 

1,234,750 

234,352” 


Comparing  these  exports  with  population  in  1790,  we  find  that  for 
every  one  hundred  persons,  including  slaves,  the  value  of  the  ex 
ports  was  as  follows; 


New  England, 

New'  York, 
Pennsylvania,  - 
Virginia  and  Maryland, 
Carolinas, 

Georgia, 


865.00 

91.00 

28.00 

181.00 

192.00 

283.00 


78 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

NEW  ENGLAND’S  SHIPPING  INTERESTS  (CONTINUED). — NA\H- 
GATION  LAWS. 

“An  oak  vessel  could  be  built  at  Gloucester  or  Salem 
for  121  per  ton;  a ship  of  live-oak  or  American  cedar 
cost  not  more  than  |38  per  ton.  On  the  other  hand, 
fir  vessels  built  on  the  Baltic  cost  835  per  ton,  and  no- 
where in  England,  France,  or  Holland  could  a ship  be 
made  of  oak  for  less  than  850  per  ton.  Often  the  cost 
was  as  high  as  860.” — Eiske’s  Critical  Period,  etc.,  pages 
111-4:2. 

To  the  general  discussion  of  New  England's  shipping 
interests  in  the  pi-eceding  chapter,  let  us  now  enter  upon 
an  examination  of  the  different  laws  passed  for  their 
benefit,  except  the  fishing  bounty  acts,  which  vvfill  be 
found  in  the  next  chapter. 

It  is  a matter  of  curious  interest  that  the  clause  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  conferring  upon  the  Congress 
the  power  to  regulate  commerce  was  the  result  of  a 
compromise  between  tbe  agricultural  interest  of  the 
South  and  the  shipping  interest  of  the  Nortl; eastern 
States.  In  Mr.  Charles  Pinckney’s  plan  of  a Constitu- 
tion, which  presented  the  general  form  and  much  of  the 
substance  finally  agreed  to,  he  proposed  to  grant  this 
power  with  a very  salutary  proviso,  inspired,  perhaps, 
by  that  distrust  of  the  commercial  interests  which 
seems  to  have  been  shared  by  many  of  the  Southern 
delegates  to  the  Convention.  ^ It  was  that  any  act  reg- 

*For  some  reason  the  New  Englanders  made  unfavorable  impres- 
sions on  others  besides  the  Southerners.  In  the  Journal  of  Wil 
liam  Maclay,  one  of  Pennsylvania's  first  Senators,  two  opinions  are 
recorded,  which  were  kept  by  him  and  his  family  from  publication 
for  a century.  The  first  is  on  page  260,  as  follows:  “I  would  now 
remark,  if  I had  not  done  it  before,  that  there  is  very  little  candor 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


79 


ulating  commerce  should  require  a tivo-thirds  vote  in 
its  favor  in  each  House. 

The  subject  was  debated  for  months,  and  fruitless 
efforts  were  made  by  the  Northeasteim  delegates  to  have 
the  proviso  stricken  out.  At  last  an  opportunity  for  a 
“ bargain”  arose.  This  was  when  the  question  was  to 
be  settled  whether  the  Congress  should  have  the  power 
to  prohibit  the  importation  of  African  slaves.  “As  the 
system,”  says  Luther  Martin  of  Maryland,  who  was  a 
member  of  the  Convention,  “was.  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Detail”  (the  Committee  of  Five  who  reported 
the  final  draft),  “ the  provision  was  general,  that  such 
importation  should  not  be  prohibited,  without  confin- 
ing it  to  any  particular  period.  This  was  rejected  by 
eight  States,  Georgia,  South  Caroliua,  and,  I think. 
North  Carolina,  voting  for  it.  We  were  then  told  by 
the  delegates  from  the  two  first  of  those  States  that 
their  States  wmuld  never  agree  to  a system  which  put 
it  in  the  power  of  the  general  government  to  prevent 
the  importation  of  slaves,  and  that  they  as  delegates 
from  those  States  must  withhold  their  assent  from  such 
a system.  A committee  of  one  member  from  each  State 
was  chosen  by  ballot  to  take  this  part  of  the  system 
under  their  consideration  and  to  endeavor  to  agree  upon 
some  report,  which  should  reconcile  those  States.  To 
this  committee  also  was  referred  the  following  proposi- 
tion, which  had  been  reported  by  the  Committee  of  De- 
tail, to-wit:  ‘No  navigation  act  shall  be  passed  without 
the  assent  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  present  in  each 
House’ ; a proposition  which  the  staple  and  commer- 
cial (agricultural)  States  were  solicitous  to  retain,  lest 

in  New  England  men.”  The  second  is  on  page  341 : “For  my  knowl- 
edge of  the  Eastern  character  warrants  me  in  drawing  this  conclu 
sion,  that  they  will  cabal  against  and  endeavor  to  subvert  any  gov 
ernment  which  they  have  not  the  management  of.” 


80 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


their  commerce  should  he  placed  too  much  under  the 
power  of  the  Eastern  (New  England)  States;  hut  which 
those  States  were  as  anxious  to  reject.  This  committee, 
of  which  I also  had  the  honor  to  he  a member,  met  and 
took  under  their  consideration  the  subject  committed 
to  them.  I found  the  Eastern  States,  notwithstanding 
their  aversion  to  slavery,  were  willing  to  indulge  the 
Southern  States,  at  least  with  a temporary  liberty  to 
prosecute  the  slave  trade,  provided  the  Southern  States 
would  in  their  turn  gratify  them  by  laying  no  restric- 
tion on  navigation  acts;  and  after  a little  time  the  com- 
mittee, by  a great  majority,  agreed  on  a report.'’  which 
was  acceptable  to  both  parties. ' 

Such  was  the  compromise:  the  Southern  States  re- 
tained the  power  until  1808-  to  purchase  Africans  im- 
ported by  New  England’s  slave  traders,  with  the  proviso 
lodged  somewhere  (nobody  knows  where)  that  the 
Northern  States  could  liberate  and  enfranchise  them; 
and  the  Eastern  States  secured  to  themselves  the  power 
to  have  navigation  acts  passed  by  a bare  majority  of  a 
quorum  in  each  House — one  more  than  a fourth  of  the 
total  membership — instead  of  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers. ^ 

But  in  truth  this  was  only  a seeming  compromise:  it 
was  a surrender  of  two  rights  by  the  South,"  and  a 
surrender  of  no  right  by  the  North.  The  right  to  im- 

' Yates’s  Secret  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Convention  of  1T8T. 
pages  62-6:1. 

^ The  compromise,  as  agreed  to  in  the  committee,  and  reponed  to 
the  Convention,  provided  for  non-interference  with  the  slave  trade 
till  1800;  but  the  next  day  (August  25)  “it  was  moved  and  seconded" 
to  strike  out  1800  and  insert  1808,  and  this  was  agreed  to.  the  yeas 
being  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Maryland. 
North  Carolina.  ISouth  Carolina  and  Georgia  ; and  the  nays.  New 
Jersey.  Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  Virginia. — El.  Deb..  1.  264. 

■’See  Constitution,  Article  I,  sections  5.  8 and  9;  and  Note  H. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


81 


port  slaves  torever  belonged  to  each  of  the  Southern 
States,  as  did  the  right  to  go  into  the  open  market  and 
employ  the  cheapest  ships  for  their  coastwise  and  foreign 
commerce.  Both  rights  they  lost  in  the  so-called  com- 
promise, and  received  absolutely  nothing  as  an  equiva- 
lent. Truly  did  Greeley  say  (2,  p.  232)  that  “ the  Con- 
stitution was  essentially  a matter  of  compromise  and 
mutual  concession — a proceeding  wherein  Thrift  is  apt 
to  gain  at  the  cost  of  Principle.”  ’ 

This  power  being  delegated  to  the  Congress,  its  exer- 
cise was  entered  upon  with  eagerness  before  measures 
were  adopted  to  organize  the  Treasury  or  State  Depart- 
ment,'or  the  Supreme  or  any  other  courts.  In  the  Sen- 
ate, according  to  Maclay,  when  the  clause  in  the  bill 
was  reached  granting  a partial  monopoly  to  “ all  ships 
or  vessels  within  the  United  States,  and  belonging 
wholly  to  citizens  thereof,”  Izard,  of  South  Carolina, 
moved  to  have  the  latter  part  struck  out,  “ the  effect  of 
which  would  have  been  that  no  discrimination  would 
have  been  made  between  our  own  citizens  and  foreign- 
ers.” Lee  and  Grayson,  of  Virginia,  Butler  and  Izard, 
of  South  Carolina,  and  Few,  of  Georgia  (North  Carolina 
was  not  then  in  the  Union  i,  “argued  in  the  most  un- 
ceasing manner”  against  the  discrimination,  but  to  no 
purpose. 

The  act  became  a law  September  1,  1789;  and  even 
Maclay,  a supporter  of  it,  was  compelled  by  his  sense  of 


* An  example  of  iiiisrepresentation  of  truth  is  seen  in  the  following 
reference  to  this  so-called  compromise  on  page  255  of  Fiske’s  Civil 
Government:  “There  was  some  sectional  opposition  between  North 
and  South,  and  in  Virginia  there  was  a party  in  favor  of  a separate 
Southern  Confederacy.  But  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  won 
over  by  the  concessions  in  the  Constitution  to  slavery,  and  especially 
a provision  that  the  importation  of  slaves  from  Africa  should  not  be 
prohibited  until  1808.“ 


6 


82 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


justice  to  make  this  admission:  “In  a view  solely  mer- 
cantile, this  was  perhaps  wrong,  as  by  these  means  our 
foreign  articles  would  be  dearer  and  our  home  produce 
cheaper.  ” ^ 

This  remark  referred  to  the  foreign  trade,  and  was 
written  before  the  coastwise-trade  provisions  were 
reached.  These  gave  to  “ American  ” vessels  an  abso- 
lute monopoly  of  the  carrying  trade  between  ports  of 
the  United  States,  and  enabled  their  owners  to  fix 
freight  rates  on  naval  stores,  lumber,  pork,  indigo  (when 
it  was  a Southern  crop),  wheat,  flour,  cotton,  tobacco, 
and  rice  shipped  to  Northern  markets,  and  on  Northern 
and  foreign  goods  shipped  from  Northern  to  Southern 
ports. 

The  discriminations  in  favor  of  “ American  ” ships 
will  be  seen  in  the  following  acts : 

TONNAGE^  DUTIES. 

1.  The  Act  of  July  20,  1790,  amending  the  Act  of 
September  1,  1789,  but  not  changing  rates:  “ Upon  aU 
ships  or  vessels  which,  after  the  1st  day  of  September 
next,  shall  be  entered  in  the  United  States  from  any  for- 
eign port  or  places,  there  shall  be  paid  the  several  and 
respective  duties  following,  that  is  to  say:  on  ships  or 
vessels  of  the  United  States  at  che  rate  of  six  cents  per 
ton;  on  ships  or  vessels  built  within  the  United  States, 
after  the  20th  day  of  July  last,  but  belonging  wholly  or 
in  part  to  subjects  of  foreign  powers,  at  the  rate  of 
thirty  cents  per  ton ; on  other  ships  or  vessels  at  the 
]’ate  of  fifty  cents  per  ton.” 

^ Maclay’s  Journal,  pages  76,  77. 

^ The  bui’den  or  tonnage  of  a ship  is  its  capacity  in  cubic  feet. 
Webster’s  Dictionary  says  a ton  is  about  forty  cubic  feet:  Alden's 
Cyclopoedia  says  100  cubic  feet  make  a ton ; but  the  act  of  Congress 
establishing  rules  for  measuring  the  capacity  of  a vessel  makes  95 
cubic  feet  a ton,  which  is  about  76  bushels. — Act  of  March  2,  1799. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


83 


2.  The  Act  of  January  IJ,  1817,  reenacts  the  rates  of 
the  above  act,  with  a proviso  that  there  shall  not  be 
any  impairment  of  rights  acquired  by  any  foreign  na- 
tion under  any  treaties  or  other  commercial  agreements. 

3.  The  Act  of  March  1,  1817,  makes  certain  discrimi- 
nations in  favor  of  licensed  vessels ; and  imposes  fifty 
cents  per  ton  on  vessels  of  the  United  States  if  the  oth- 
cers  and  at  least  two -thirds  of  the  crew  are  not  citizens 
of  the  United  States. 

4.  The  Act  of  May  31,  1830,  provides  that  no  tonnage 
duties  shall  be  paid  on  vessels  of  the  United  States;  nor 
on  the  vessels  of  any  foreign  nation  which  levies  no  dis- 
criminating or  countervailing  duties,  “ to  the  disadvan- 
tage of  the  United  States.’’ 

LIGHT  MONEY. 

The  Act  of  March  27,  1804,  lays  a duty  of  fifty  cents 
per  ton,  “to  be  denominated  ‘ light  money,  ’ ” on  all 
ships  or  vessels,  not  of  the  United  States,  “which  * 
may  enter  the  ports  of  the  United  States”  ; provided  that 
this  act  shall  not  contravene  any  provision  of  the  treaty 
with  France. 

RESTRICTIONS  ON  FOREIGN  VESSELS. 

The  Act  of  March  1,  1817,  contained  this  provision: 
“After  the  30th  day  of  September  next,  no  goods,  wares 
or  merchandise  shall  be  imported  into  the  United  States 
from  any  foreign  port  or  place,  except  in  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  or  in  such  foreign  vessels  as  truly  and 
wholly  belong  to  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  that  country 
of  which  the  goods  are  the  growth,  production,  or  manu- 
facture ; or  from  which  such  goods,  etc. , can  only  be,  or 
most  usually  are,  first  shipped  for  transportation:  Pro- 
vided nevertheless,  That  this  regulation  shall  not  extend 
to  the  vessels  of  any  foreign  nation  which  has  not 
adopted  and  which  shall  not  adopt  a similar  regulation.  ’ ’ 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


COASTING  TRADE. 

1.  On  February  18,  1793,  the  Act  of  September  1, 
1789,  was  amended  to  this  effect:  “ Ships  or  vessels  en- 
rolled by  virtue  of  ‘the  last-named  act,’  and  those  of 
twenty  tons  and  upwards,  which  shall  be  enrolled  after 
the  last  day  of  May  next,  in  pursuance  of  this  act,  and 
having  a license  in  force,  or,  if  less  than  twenty  tons, 
not  being  enrolled,  shall  have  a license  in  force,  as  is 
hereinafter  required,  and  no  others,  shall  be  deemed 
ships  or  vessels  of  the  United  States,  entitled  to  the 
privileges  of  ships  or  vessels  employed  in  the  coasting 
trade  or  fisheries.” 

2.  For  some  reason — probably  evasions  of  the  law — 
it  was  enacted,  March  1,  1817,  that:  “No  goods,  wares, 
or  inerchandise  shall  be  imported,  under  penalty  of 
forfeiture  thereof,  from  one  port  of  the  United  States 
to  another  port  of  the  United  States,  in  a vessel  belong- 
ing wholly  or  in  part  to  a subject  of  any  foreign  power.  ” 

3.  On  May  27.  18-18.  an  act  was  passed  to  permit 
these  privileged  vessels  (including  steamships^  to  touch 
at  foreign  ports  for  merchandise  and  passengers.  ‘ 


' “And  what  does  jNew  York  enjoy?  do  Massachusetts  and 

Maine  enjoy?  They  enjoy  an  exclusive  right  of  carrying  on  the 
coasting  trade  from  State  to  State,  on  the  Atlantic,  and  around 
Cape  Horn  to  the  Pacific.  * * * it  is  this  right  to  the  coasting 

trade,  to  the  exclusion  of  foreigners,  thus  granted  to  the  Xorthern 
States,  which  they  have  ever  held,  and  of  which,  up  to  this  time, 
there  has  been  nc  attempt  to  deprive  them:  it  is  this  which  has  em- 
ployed so  much  tonnage  and  so  many  men.  and  given  support  to  so 
many  thousands  of  our  fellou  citizens.  Now.  what  would  you 
say  * " * if  the  South  and  the  Southwest  were  to  join  together 

to  repeal  this  law,  * * and  invite  the  Dane,  the  Swede,  the 

Hamburgher,  and  all  the  commercial  nations  of  Europe  who  can 
carry  cheaper,  to  come  in  and  carry  goods,’'  etc.? — Webster  to  the 
Y'oung  Men  of  Albany,  May  28,  1851. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


85 


DISCRIMINATING  DUTIES. 


The  tariJf  act  of  July  J,  1789,  imposed  discriminating 
taxes  on  tea  imported  from  China,  as  follows; 


In  U S. 

III  Foreign 

Vessels. 

Vessels. 

Bohea 

_ per  lb. , 6 cents. 

15  cents. 

Soucliong  . _ 

“ 10  “ 

22 

Otlier  black  imi^erial  _ _ _ . 

“ 10  “ 

22 

Gunpowdei’  

“ 10 

22  “ 

Hyson  and  Yoniig-Hyson. 

“ 20  “ 

45  “ 

All  othei-  green 

“ 12  “ 

27  •• 

This  same  act  allowed  a redaction  of  10  per  cent  of 
the  rates  of  duty  imposed  on  all  foreign  goods,  if  im- 
ported in  United  States  vessels;  and  while  imposing  a 
tax  of  12J  per  cent  on  all  articles  (other  than  tea)  com- 
ing from  China  or  India,  it  permitted  them  to  come  in 
free  of  duty  in  ships  built  or  owned  in  the  United  States. 

And  as  if  this  were  not  favoritism  enough,  the  Act  of 
May  13,  1800 — the  last  year  of  the  domination  of  the 
Federalists — provided:  “That  in  case  of  the  re-exporta- 
tion from  the  United  States  of  goods,  wares,  and  mer- 
chandise, imported  thereinto  in  foreign  ships  or  vessels, 
no  part  of  the  additional  duty  imposed  by  law  on  such 
goods,  etc.,  on  account  of  their  importation  in  such 
ships  or  vessels,  shall  be  allowed  to  be  drawback,”  etc. 

“HOME  market”  for  SHIP  BUILDERS. 

The  Act  of  December  31,  1792,  provides  as  follows: 

“ Ships  or  vessels  built  within  the  United  States, 
Vvhether  before  or  after  the  Ith  of  July,  1776,  and  be- 
longing wholly  to  a citizen  or  citizens  thereof ; or  not 
built  within  the  said  States,  but  on  the  16th  day  of  May, 
in  the  year  1789,  belonging  and  thenceforh  continuing 
to  belong  to  a citizen  or  citizens  thereof;  and  ships  or 
vessels  which  may  hereafter  be  captured  in  war  by  such 
citizen  or  citizens,  and  lawfully  condemned  as  prize,  or 


86 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


which  have  been  or  may  be  adjudged  to  be  forfeited  for 
a breach  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  being  wholly 
owned  by  a citizen  or  citizens  thereof,  and  no  other, 
may  be  registered  as  hereinafter  directed,”  etc. 

This  act,  which  has  never  been  repealed,  compels 
every  person,  corporation.  State,  and  even  the  United 
States,  whenever  a necessity  arises,  to  purchase,  lease 
or  employ  in  any  way  any  ship  or  vessel,  to  make  the 
purchase,  etc.,  in  the  “home  market”;  and  it  is  not 
necessary  to  assure  the  reader  that  every  advantage  has 
been  taken  which  the  act  permits. 

More  than  a century  has  this  monopoly  been  fleecing 
the  people,  either  directly,  whenever  they  have  had  oc- 
casion to  purchase  or  hire  a vessel,  or  indirectly,  through 
the  military  branch  of  the  Federal  Government  when- 
ever it  has  needed  to  purchase  or  hire  transports  for 
troops  or  war  material.  The  delay  in  transporting  troops, 
etc.,  to  Cuba,  Manila,  etc.,  during  the  present  war  with 
Spain  is  familiar  to  readers  of  newspapers.  “ Outrage- 
ous prices,”  as  the  Philadelphia  Record  calls  them,  have 
been  charged  by  the  ship-owners.  On  the  17th  of  Sep- 
tember, 1898,  a check  for  Si,  175, 000  was  given  in  pay- 
ment of  the  rental  of  four  ocean  steamers  of  the  American 
line,  which  were  in  the  Federal  service  “for  an  average 
period  of  nearly  one  hundred  and  twenty  days.”  This 
is  about  83,070  per  day  for  each  ship,  or  8820,550  per 
year ; and  the  last  sum  is  about  flve  times  the  total  cost 
($165,868)  of  the  fifteen  iron  and  steel  steamships  built 
in  Pennsylvania  in  1889. — Census,  1890,  Manf.  Ind.. 
Part  3,  561. 

How  large  a stream  of  wealth  this  paternalism  has 
caused  to  flow  from  the  South  to  the  North,  and  chiefly 
to  New  England,  we  may  never  know:  but  we  may  not 
err  greatly  if  we  draw  inferences  from  the  parallel  pater- 
nalism complained  of  in  the  address  to  “the  Inhabitants 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


87 


of  Great  Britain,”  July  8,  1775,  by  “The  Twelve  United 
Colonies,”  as  follows:  “It  is  alleged  that  we  contribute 
nothing  to  the  common  defense.  To  this  we  answer 
that  the  advantages  which  Great  Britain  receives  from 
the  monopoly  of  our  trade  far  exceeds  our  proportion  of 
the  expense  necessary  for  that  purpose.  ’ ’ * And  we 
may  reach  a more  definite  conclusion  from  the  testi- 
mony of  a witness  who  had  opportunities  of  observing 
the  operations  of  these  laws.  It  was  Mathew  Carey, 
who,  on  page  268  of  his  Olive  Branch,  said: 

“ The  naked  fact  is  that  the  demagogues  in  the  East- 
ern States,  not  satisfied  with  deriving  all  the  benefits 
from  the  Southern  States,  that  they  would  from  so 
many  wealthy  colonies — with  making  princely  fortunes 
by  the  carriage  and  exportation  of  their  bulky  and  val- 
uable productions — and  suppl3fing  them  with  their  own 
manufactures,  and  the  manufactures  and  productions 
of  Europe  and  the  East  and  West  Indies,  to  an  enor- 
mous amount,  and  at  an  immense  profit,  uniformly 
treated  them  with  outrage,  insult,  and  injury.” 

To  him  may  be  added  another  witness,  who  is  quoted 
by  Carey  on  page  291.  It  was  John  Lowell,  the  foun- 
der of  Lowell  Institute  in  Boston. 

In  his  Road  to  Ruin,  objecting  to  the  transfer  of  cap- 
ital from  commerce  to  manufacturing,  he  declared  that 
commercial  gains  were  50  per  cent,  while  factories  could 
never  yield  more  than  20  per  cent ! 

And  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses  is  corroborated 
by  the  extent  of  the  operations  of  those  engaged  in  com- 
merce. Their  sails  whitened  every  harbor  in  the  com- 
mercial world ; through  their  agents  foreigners  received 
their  impressions  of  the  character,  skill,  enterprise,  and 
spirit  of  the  people  of  all  these  States;  and,  when  the 


IN.  C.  Col.  Rees.,  X,  81. 


88 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


War  of  1812  commenced,  the  whole  people,  from  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico  to  the  Canadian  border,  had  lost  much 
of  that  respect  abroad  which  had  been  inspired  by  their 
conduct  in  the  Revolution.  “ There  existed  a general 
impression  among  civilized  nations.’’  says  the  States- 
man’s Manual,  Volume  I,  page  376,  “ that  the  spirit  of 
liberty  and  independence  which  had  carried  America 
triumphantly  through  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  was 
extinguished  a love  of  gain  and  commercial  enter- 
prise, without  courage  and  resolution  sufficient  to  sus- 
tain the  National  rights.” 

The  effect  of  the  first  act  (September  1,  1789)  was 
magical;  the  tonnage  employed  in  the  foreign  trade 
rose  from  123,893  in  1789  to  316,251  in  1790;  that  en- 
gaged in  the  coasting  trade  rose  from  68,607  to  103,775 
in  the  same  period;  and  that  engaged  in  the  cod  and 
mackerel  fisheries  (with  the  additional  stimulus  of 
bounties  and  drawbacks  explained  elsewhere),  rose  from 
9,062  to  28,318  in  the  same  period.  ‘ 

The  Act  of  February  18,  1793,  providing  for  favors  to 
vessels  of  less  than  twenty  tons,  employed  in  the  coast- 
ing trade,  was  equally  magical;  the  tables  drawn  on 
above  give  7,218  tons  for  that  year  and  16,977  for  1791. 

As  might  be  expected,  the  foreign  commerce  of  the 
United  States  rapidly  fell  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
enjoyed  a monopoly  of  the  coasting  trade;  so  that  before 
1795  they  controlled  75  per  cent  of  it;  from  that  year  to 
1800,  87  per  cent;  and  by  1810  they  had  reached  91  per 
cent.^  From  the  last-named  year  until  1831  it  never 
fell  below  86  per  cent ; but  about  that  time  the  policy 
of  mad  protection — the  “ bill  of  abominations  '* — was 
beginning  to  allure  capital  from  commerce  to  manufac- 


' Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States,  1891,  page  1086. 
■^bid.,  page  CVIII. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


89 


turiiig;  and  the  American  tonnage  fell  to  77  per  cent, 
from  which  it  never  recovered.  Indeed,  the  still  mad- 
der protection  the  country  was  afflicted  with  hy  the  war 
tariffs  ran  the  per  cent  down  to  19  in  1881;  and,  not- 
withstanding all  the  extra  coddling  by  exemptions  from 
fees ' and  from  taxes  on  ship  materials,  ^ and  by  boun- 
ties for  carrying  the  mails,  ^ etc.,  the  high-water  mark 
of  1895  was  only  23  per  cent. 

Two  observations  should  be  made  here.  The  first  is 
that  many  Southern  statesmen  in  the  early  Congresses 
supported  and  voted  for  the  measures  designed  to  foster 

’By  the  Act  of  June  26,  1884,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was 
directed  to  pay  to  United  States  Consuls  the  fees  theretofore  re 
quired  to  be  paid  by  masters  of  vessels  and  seamen;  and  the  Act  of 
June  19,  1886,  directed  that  officer  to  pay  fees  theretofore  paid  by 
masters,  engineers,  pilots  and  mates  of  vessels,  as  for  measuring  ton 
nage,  issuing  license,  bill  of  health,  inspecting,  granting  certificates, 
granting  permits,  etc.,  etc. 

^ The  policy  of  exempting  ship  material  from  import  taxes  was  in- 
augurated by  the  Act  of  June  6,  1872;  and  it  has  been  pursued  ever 
since.  But  the  Dingley  Act  goes  beyond  this;  it  j)rovides  in  sec- 
tions 12,  13  and  15  that  “ all  materials  of  foreign  production  which 
may  be  necessary  for  the  construction  of  vessels  built  in  the  United 
States  for  foreign  account  and  ownership,  or  for  the  purpose  of  be- 
ing employed  in  the  foreign  trade,  including  the  trade  between  the 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports  of  the  United  States,  and  all  such  mate- 
rials necessary  for  the  building  of  their  machinery,  and  all  articles 
necessary  for  their  outfit  and  equipment,”  or  “ for  the  repair”  or 
“for  stippUes  (not  including  equipment)  of  vessels  of  the  United 
States  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  or  in  trade  between  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  ports  of  the  United  States,”  shall  be  exempt  from  tariff 
or  internal  revenue  taxes. 

®No  longer  ago  than  1892  Mr.  Postmaster- General  Wanamaker 
reported  that  between  February  1 of  that  year  and  .Tune  30  he  paid 
out  to  four  steamship  lines  §77,103.85  more  than  the  service  was 
worth;  and  his  estimates  for  the  next  year  cover  a bonus  of  §610,639 
to  nine  lines. — (See  his  Report  for  1892,  pp.  10  and  11.) 

And  Postmaster-General  Bissell,  in  his  report  for  1894.  page  22, 
says  that  a bonus  or  subsidy  of  §257,779  was  paid  that  year,  under 
one  of  Mr.  Wanamaker’s  contracts,  to  three  steamship  lines. 


90 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  shipping  interests,  for  the  double  purpose  of  insur- 
ing a powerful  merchant  marine  which  might  render 
valuable  service  in  case  of  war,  and  of  pacifying  the 
commercial  class  in  New  England  who  threatened  to 
withdraw  their  States  from  the  Union  whenever  their 
interests  seemed  to  be  losing  the  paternal  care  of  the 
Government. 

The  other  is  that  the  farmers  of  the  South,  enjoying 
a satisfactory  degree  of  prosperity,  havung  no  railroads 
or  other  means  of  rapid  communication  with  the  people 
of  the  Northern  States,  enjoying  none  of  the  modern 
facilities  for  informing  themselves,  and  trusting  all  pub- 
lic matters  to  their  iiolitical  leaders,  saw  no  reason  why 
they  should  abandon  their  farms  and  enter  into  a com- 
petition with  the  experienced  ship-builders  and  traders 
of  the  North.  They  did  not  realize  the  stealthy  trans- 
fer of  their  wealth  to  the  Northern  States  until  it  was 
too  late  to  hope  for  an  efficient  remedy,  and  even  then 
only  a very  small  per  cent  of  them  could  be  made  to 
understand  the  causes  of  their  financial  decadence.  But 
even  if  Southern  capital  had  been  directed  to  this  com- 
petition, the  wealth  of  the  farming  class  would  have 
flowed  from  them  as  before,  the  channel  alone  being 
changed.  So  there  was  no  hope  of  recovering  his  lost 
wealth  or  of  securing  the  benefits  of  fair  and  honorable 
commercial  competition;  and  the  intelligent  farmer 
began  to  doubt  whether  he  was  having  his  share  of  the 
blessings  of  liberty,  to  secure  which  his  forefathers  had 
carried  his  State  into  the  Union. 

And  this  injustice  is  still  irremediable. 

Note  H. 

The  provision  of  the  Constitution  empowering  a quorum  to  do 
business,  thus  enabling  one- fourth  plus  one  of  the  total  membership 
to  pass  imi^ortant  acts,  provided  they  are  voted  against  by  one- 
fourth,  has  led  to  unforeseen  evil  results  (unless  we  except  Mason 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


91 


and  Randolph,  of  Virginia,  who  refused  to  approve  and  sign  the 
Constitution  because  this  “two-thirds”  provision  was  stricken  out). 
If  a two  thirds  vote  had  been  required  on  all  bills  laying  taxes  and 
making  appropriations,  the  tranquillity  of  the  Union  might  never 
have  been  disturbed. 

The  protective  tariff  of  1816  was  passed  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives by  the  affirmative  votes  of  88  out  of  a total  membership  of 
183,  or  48  per  cent. 

The  “ American  System  ” of  1824  was  passed  by  107  out  of  213,  or 
oOl  per  cent. 

The  “bill  of  abominations”  of  1828  was  passed  by  105  out  of  213, 
or  49  per  cent. 

The  tariff  act  of  1832  was  passed  by  132  out  of  213,  or  61  per  cent. 

The  tariff  of  1842  was  passed  by  103  out  of  243,  or  42  per  cent. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  the  tariff  acts  up  to  1861 — those  acts  which 
caused,  directly  or  indirectly,  nearly  all  the  excitement  and  antago- 
nism in  the  Union — wei’e  imposed  on  the  people  by  minority  votes, 
with  two  exceptions ; and  that  the  act  which  laid  the  foundation  for 
the  threatened  rupture  in  1832  was  passed  by  49  per  cent  of  the  to- 
tal membership. 

But  during  all  these  years  the  people  Avere  flattered  by  the  jDoIiti- 
eians  with  rhetorical  flourishes  about  “American  citizens.”  “demo- 
cratic government,”  “the  popular  will,”  etc. 

This  minority  government  is  going  on  yet,  and  Avill  continue  to  do 
so  as  long  as  the  people  believe  they  are  living  under  a “govern- 
ment of  the  peoirle,  and  by  the  ireople,  and  for  the  people.” 


92 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


OHAPTEE  VII. 

FISHING  BOUNTIES. 

The  first  tariff  act,  which  became  a law  on  July  J. 
1789,  imposed  a duty  of  ten  cents  per  bushel  on  all  salt 
imported  into  the  United  States  for  consumption,  and 
granted  a bounty  of  five  cents  a barrel  on  pickled  fish 
exported,  and  also  on  beef  and  pork  exported,  and  five 
cents  a quintal  (100  pounds)  on  dried  fish  exported,  “in 
lieu  of  a drawback  of  the  duties”  which  had  been  paid 
on  the  salt. 

The  Act  of  August  10,  1790.  raised  the  duty  on  salt 
to  twelve  cents — just  after  Hamilton's  scheme  of  fund- 
ing and  assumption  had  been  fastened  on  the  taxpay- 
ers— and  the  bounty  on  salt  fish,  beef  and  pork  was 
raised  to  ten  cents  per  barrel  and  quintal. 

But  this  was  not  concession  enough  to  the  fishing  in- 
terest; the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  sent  a petition 
to  Congress  asking  for  “a  remission  of  duties  on  all  the 
dutiable  articles  used  in  the  fisheries,”  whether  re-ex- 
ported or  not — salt,  rum,  tea,  sugar,  molasses,  iron, 
coarse  woolens,  lines  and  hooks,  sail-cloth,  cordage  and 
tonnage;  “ and  also  premiums  and  bounties.'’*  This 
petition  was  referred  to  Mr.  -Jefferson,  Secretary  of  State, 
for  a report  on  it;  and  his  report  was  that  a drawback 
of  duties  on  articles  exported  ought  to  be  allowed,  but 
that  the  fisheries  ought  not  to  draw  support  from  the 
Treasury. - 

' Two  years  before  this  John  Jay  had  said  in  the  Federalist  (No. 
IV),  that  these  fishermen  could  supply  the  markets  of  Fi-ance  and 
Britain  “cheaper  than  they  can  themselves,  notwithstanding  any 
efforts  to  prevent  it  by  bounties  on  their  own,  or  duties  on  foreign 
fish.” 

^ See  Benton’s  Thu-ty  Years’  View,  Volume  II,  pages  194-9S. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


93 


The  uudeiiying  motive  of  this  petition  was  “patriotic” 
in  the  highest  degree;  it  was  to  encourage  the  fisher- 
men to  maintain  a “ nursery  for  seamen,”  who  would 
be  schooled  to  manage  cruisers  and  privateers  in  case  of 
a war. — (See  Maclay,  p.  SSd;.  The  Legislature  forgot  the 
saperior  advantages  of  whaling  vessels  for  this  service. 

The  Act  of  December  31,  179.^,  changed  the  bounty 
from  barrels  and  quintals  of  fish  to  the  tonnage  of  the 
vessels  employed  in  the  business,  granting  30  cents  per 
ton  for  each  season,  whether  any  fish  were  exported  or 
not. 

The  Act  of  March  3,  1797,  advanced  the  tax  on  im- 
ported salt  to  30  cents  per  bushel,  and  a corresponding 
increase  was  made  in  the  bounties  both  to  exported  pro- 
visions and  pickled  fish,  and  in  the  allowance  to  fishing 
vessels. 

The  Act  of  March  3,  1799,  granted  a bounty  of  30  cents 
per  barrel  on  exported  pickled  fish,  and  26  cents  per 
barrel  on  exported  salted  beef  and  pork. 

Thus  stood  matters  until  1807,  when,  on  the  recom- 
mendation of  President  Jefferson,  the  salt  tax  was  abol- 
ished, and  with  it  all  bounties  and  allowances  to  fishing 
vessels,  to  pickled  fish,  and  to  salted  beef  and  pork. 

In  1813,  however,  the  exigencies  of  war  furnished  an 
excuse  for  restoring  the  tax  of  30  cents  per  bushel  on 
imported  salt;  and  the  threats  of  secession  in  the  New 
England  States  furnished  an  excuse  for  a considerable 
enlargement  of  the  “bounty  of  the  Nation.” 

The  act  of  that  year,  July  29,  left  out  the  farmer' s beef 
and  pork;  and  granted  20  cents  a barrel  on  all  pickled 
fish  exported,  and  an  additional  bounty  per  ton  as  fol- 
lows; One  dollar  and  sixty  cents  per  ton  if  the  vessel 
were  under  twenty  tons;  $2.40  per  ton  if  under  thirty 
tons  and  over  twenty;  and  $4  per  ton  if  over  thirty 
tons. 


9i  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

The  Act  of  March  3,  1819,  changed  this  tonnage  bounty 
on  vessels  of  more  than  live  and  not  exceeding  thirty 
tons  to  $3.50  per  ton. 

These  bounties  were  yiaid  to  the  fishermen,  although, 
according  to  a judicial  decision  (The  Harriet,  1 Story. 
251),  they  were  “under  no  restrictions  as  to  the  length 
of  their  trips  or  the  nature  of  their  fisheries,”  nor  as  to 
the  distance  they  should  sail  from  the  shores  of  the 
United  States,  “if  they  were  without  the  limits  of  any 
port  or  harbor  on  the  seacoast.”  ^ 

On  May  26,  1821,  it  was  enacted  that,  if  a returning 
fishing  vessel,  having  complied  with  the  terms  of  the 
law,  were  wrecked,  her  owner  should  “ be  entitled  to 
the  same  bounty  as  would  have  been  allowed,  had  such 
vessel  returned  to  port.  ’ ’ 

The  Act  of  July  13,  1832,  reduced  the  salt  tax  to  ten 
cents  per  bushel;  the  Act  of  March  2,  1833,  provided 
for  a further  reduction;  the  Act  of  July  1,  1836,  re- 
stored it  to  ten  cents,  where  it  remained  till  August  30. 
1812.  Then  it  was  reduced  to  eight  cents,  where  it  re- 
mained till  salt  was  placed  on  the  free  list  by  the  Act  of 
July  30,  1816.  But  the  bounties  and  allowances  were 
not  reduced. 

Here  we  have  extravagant  and  unauthorized  bounties 
for  at  least  thirty-three  years — from  1813  to  1816 — eat- 
ing up  the  substance  of  the  people  without  any  compen- 
satory benefits  to  them.  In  1810,  according  to  Mr.  Ben- 
ton (2,  197  ),  it  took  nearly  all  the  salt  revenue  to  pay 
the  bounties;  the  next  year,  he  said,  that  revenue 
would  fall  short  of  paying  them;  and  in  1812  it  would 
not  pay  but  half  of  them.  And  thus  it  went  on  from 
bad  to  worse  till  the  Act  of  1816  provided  that  no  bounty 
should  be  allowed  on  pickled  fish,  and  no  allowance  ex- 


^See  Brig'htley’s  Digest,  Volume  I,  page  284,  foot  notes. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


95 


cept  a drawback  equal  to  the  tax  ou  the  imported  salt 
used  in  curing  them ; but  even  then  the  tonnage  bounty 
was  not  repealed. 

How  much  the  people  were  compelled  by  law  to  con- 
tribute as  a free  gift  to  the  fishermen ' may  never  be 
known;  but  some  estimate  may  be  ventured  from  the 
figures  given  by  Mr.  Benton.  “ In  1831,”  he  says,  “ a 
drawback  of  fluty  on  the  salt  used  in  curing  the  fish  ex- 
ported would  have  been  about  $160,000;  but  the  bounty 
and  allowance  amounted  to  $313,894.”  This  was  when 
the  tax  was  20  cents  per  bushel.  The  next  year  it  was 
reduced  to  10  cents,  and  for  fourteen  years  it  varied  be- 
tween eight  and  ten ; so  that  instead  of  a drawback  of 
less  than  $80,000,  which  was  all  they  were  entitled  to 
each  year,  supposing  no  variation  of  the  amount  of  their 
annual  exports,  they  received  nearly  four  times  that  sum. 
In  fourteen  years  this  unearned  increment  would  amount 
to  more  than  three  million  two  hundred  and  seventy- 
five  thousand  dollars. 

Now  add  to  this  sum  the  result  of  a conservative  esti- 
mate for  the  preceding  nineteen  years,  and  we  have  over 
six  million  two  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  dollars  as 
the  amount  the  New  England  fishermen  were  permitted 
by  unjust  and  unconstitutional  Federal  legislation  to 
pull  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  toilers  of  the  Union  from 
1813  to  1846,  not  including  sums  obtained  by  fraud.  On 
the  question  of  constitutionality,  the  reader  will  be  in- 
terested in  the  opinions  of  two  distinguished  statesmen, 
one  of  them  having  been  a member  of  the  Convention 
which  framed  the  Constitution. 

^They  were  not  contented  with  the  “free  gift”;  they  perpetrated 
frauds  on  the  people’s  treasury,  as  is  evident  from  the  following  pas- 
sage in  President  Jackson’s  annual  message  of  December  7,  1830; 

“Abuses  in  the  allowances  for  fishing  bounties  have  also  been  cor- 
rected, and  a material  saving  in  that  branch  of  the  service  thereby 
effected.” — (See  Statesman’s  Manual,  Vol.  II,  p.  750.) 


96 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Duriog  the  discussion  of  the  bill  (1792),  which  changed 
the  bounty  from  barrels  and  quintals  to  the  tonnage  of 
fishing  vessels,  Hon.  William  B.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  ob- 
jected to  “ the  present  section  of  the  bill,”  which,  he 
said,  “appears  to  contain  a direct  bounty  on  occupa- 
tions”; and  he  denied  its  constitutionality.  This  was 
on  the  3d  of  February.  On  the  7th  of  that  month  Hon. 
Hugh  Williamson,  of  North  Carolina,  addressed  the 
House  in  opposition  to  this  bounty.  Among  other  things 
he  said : 

“ Establish  the  general  doctrine  of  bounties,  and  all 
the  provisions  (of  the  Constitution)  I have  mentioned 
become  useless.  They  vanish  into  air.  " The 

common  defence  and  general  welfare,  in  the  hands  of  a 
good  politician,  may  supersede  every  part  of  our  Con- 
stitution, and  leave  us  in  the  hands  of  time  and  chance. 

•K*  TV*  •”*  -w  *‘f  -A-  7f  -Jr 

“ Manufactures  in  general  are  useful  to  the  Nation: 
they  prescribe  the  public  good  and  ‘general  welfare. ' 
How  many  of  them  are  springing  up  in  the  Northern 
States!  Let  them  be  properly  supported  by  bounties, 
and  you  will  find  no  occasion  for  unequal  taxes.  The 
tax  may  be  equal  in  the  beginning;  it  will  be  suffi- 
ciently unequal  in  the  end. 

“ The  object  of  the  bounty,  and  the  amount  of  it,  are 
equally  to  be  disregarded  in  the  present  case.  We  are 
simply  to  consider  whether  bounties  may  safely  be  given 
under  the  present  Constitution.  For  myself.  I would 
rather  begin  with  a bounty  of  one  million  per  annum 
than  one  thousand.  I wish  that  my  constituents  may 
know  whether  they  are  to  put  any  confidence  in  that 
paper  called  the  Constitution.  * * * 

“Unless  the  Southern  States  are  protected  by  the 
Constitution,  their  valuable  staple  and  their  visionary 
wealth,  must  occasion  their  destructiou. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


97 


“ Three  short  years  has  this  Government  existed;  it 
is  not  three  years ; but  we  have  already  given  serious 
alarm  to  many  of  our  fellow- citizens.  Establish  the 
doctrine  of  bounties;  set  aside  that  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution which  requires  equal  taxes,  and  demands  similar 
distributions;  destroy  this  barrier;  audit  is  not  a few 
fishermen  that  will  enter,  claiming  ten  or  twelve  thou- 
sand dollars,  but  all  manner  of  persons ; people  of  every 
trade  and  occupation  may  enter  in  at  the  breach  until 
they  have  eaten  up  the  bread  of  our  children.”  ^ 

Here  were  honorable  men  pleading  for  honest  observ- 
ance of  that  Constitution  which  they  and  their  fellow- 

members  were  solemnly  sworn  to  support,  but  their 

\ 

pleadiug  was  vain;  the  “ breach  ” was  made,  and  “ the 
bread  of  our  children  ” has  been  eaten  up! 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  bounty  system  up  to 
1846.  Since  that  year  it  has  lost  none  of  its  vicious- 
ness; but  the  purpose  of  this  presentation  of  the  subject 
would  not  warrant  the  search  necessary  to  bring  it  up 
to  date. 

But  the  bounties  and  allowances  do  not  constitute  the 
only  burden  placed  on  the  people  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Northeastern  fishermen;  international  troubles  have 
added  a considerable  amount. 

By  the  treaty  of  peace,  1783,  United  States  citizens 
were  permitted  to  fish  on  the  Bank  of  New  Foundland, 
in  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence,  and  elsewhere,  as  formerly ; 
and  to  take  fish  “on  the  coasts,  bays,  and  creeks”  of  the 
British  dominion  in  general,  and  to  dry  and  cure  them 
in  any  unsettled  bays,  harbors,  etc.,  but  otherwise  only 
with  the  consent  of  inhabitants  or  owners  of  the  land. 

The  treaty  of  Ghent,  1814,  ignored  the  subject;  and 
the  United  States  claimed,  and  Great  Britain  denied, 
that  the  old  treaty  was  still  in  force. 


1 Elliot’s  Debates,  Volume  IV,  pages  426-37. 


7 


98 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


In  1818  a convention  at  London  granted  to  United 
States  citizens  the  right  to  fish  on  certain  parts  of  the 
west  and  southwest  coast  of  NewfouDdlaud.  on  the 
shores  of  the  Magdalen  Islands,  and  on  the  coast  of 
Labrador,  east  and  north  of  Mount  Toby;  to  dry  and 
cure  fish  on  Labrador  and  the  south  coast  of  Newfound- 
land while  unsettled,  or,  otherwise,  with  local  consent 
as  before;  and  to  enter  bays  and  harbors  for  wood, 
water,  shelter,  and  the  repair  of  damages. 

In  1854  the  “ Reciprocity  Treaty  ” confirmed  the 
rights  granted  in  1818.  and  conferrad  further  the  rights 
of  taking  all  fish,  except  shellfish,  salmon,  and  shad,  on 
the  coasts,  and  in  the  hays,  harbors,  and  creeks  (but  not 
in  the  months  of  rivers)  of  Canada,  New  Brunswick, 
Nova  Scotia,  Prince  Edward  Island,  and  the  neighbor- 
ing islarrds,  and  of  crrring  and  drying  fish  on  all  these 
shores. 

In  1866.  previous  notice  having  been  given  by  the 
United  States  authorrties.  according  to  its  terms,  the 
treaty  of  1854  was  abrogated,  which  left  the  treaty  of 
1818  in  force.  The  Britrsh-Americau  authorities  then 
for  five  years  made  many  ccirrplaiuts  of  aggressions  on 
the  part  of  the  New  England  fishernren;  and  a state  of 
tension  and  rrupleasautness  existed  until  the  treaty  of 
MMshingtou,  1871,  was  negotiated.  By  this  most  of  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  of  1854  were  revived.  Accord- 
ing to  article  25  of  this  ti’eaty  Commissioners  met  at 
Halifax  to  determine  the  justice  of  the  complaints  of 
the  Canadian  authorities;  and  this  Commission  awarded, 
1877,  damages  to  Great  Britain  in  the  sum  of  85,500.000. 

The  fishing  articles  of  the  last  treaty  expired  July  1, 
1885;  but  a temporary  arrangement  was  made  whereby 
the  New  Englanders  had  the  privileges  of  the  treaty  ex- 
tended through  that  season.  Afterwards  the  business 
was  conducted  under  the  treaty  of  ISIS;  but  a failure 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


99 


to  arrive  at  an  interpretation  of  ^Article  I,  satisfactory 
to  both  sides,  resulted  in  numerous  vexations,  annoy- 
ances, and  seizures  of  New  England  fishing  vessels.  In 
1886  serious  difficulties  arose  because  of  such  seizures. 
Ketaliatory  measures  were  threatened  and  in  some  in- 
stances atteinpted,  and  public  excitement  over  the  situ- 
ation became  alarmingly  inflamed. 

In  1887  Mr.  Cleveland  sought  a conference  with  the 
British  authorities  for  the  purpose  of  reaching  a satis- 
factory interpretation  of  the  treaty  of  1818;  each  side 
appointed  three  Commissioners,  who  sat  in  Washing- 
ton, formulated  and  signed  a treaty  on  the  15th  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1888.  But  the  Senate  refused  to  ratify  it,  where- 
upon the  President  asked  for  power  to  institute  retalia- 
tory measures  against  Canada. 

After  that  the  whole  subject  remained  in  the  condi- 
tion established  by  the  disputed  treaty  of  1818,  except 
some  temporary  or  conditional  arrangements. 

All  the  expenses  of  these  negotiations,  together  with 
the  award  to  Great  Britain,  were  paid  by  people  who, 
a few  hundred  excepted,  received  nothing  in  return, 
except  the  pleasure  of  having  conferred  further  benefits 
on  a class  which  had  been  quartered  on  them  for  nearly 
a century. 


100 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

REVOLUTIONARY  WAR  DEBT — HOW  NORTHERN  TRADERS 
AND  SPECULATORS  WERE  ENRICHED  AT  THE  EXPENSE 
OP  THE  SOUTHERN  PEOPLE  BY  THE  MANIPULATION  OF 
THE  CONTINENTAL  AND  STATE  DEBTS. 

In  the  month  of  January,  1790,  Mr.  Hamilton,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  laid  before  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, at  its  request,  “ a plan  for  the  support  of 
the  public  credit,”  proposing  that  the  debts  of  the  sep- 
arate States  be  assumed  by  the  Congress  (without  a 
shadow  of  Constitutional  authority),*  and  that  they, 
together  with  the  debts  contracted  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  be  funded,  provision  for  their  payment  to  be 
made  by  impost  duties,  excises,  etc.,  instead  of  grants 
of  the  ‘ ‘ waste  lands  ’ ’ which  had  been  ceded  by  certain 
States. 

“ Several  resolutions,”  says  Marshall’s  Life  of  Wash- 
ington, “affirmative  of  the  principles  contained  in  the 
report  of  the  Secretary,  were  moved  by  Mr.  Fitzsim- 
mons, of  Pennsylvania.  To  the  first,  which  respected 
a provision  for  the  foreign  debt” — S11,T10,000 — “the 
House  agreed  without  a dissenting  voice.  The  second, 
in  favor  of  appropriating  permanent  funds  for  payment 
of  interest  on  the  domestic  debt,  etc.,  gave  rise  to  a very 

‘ In  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  August  21,  Mr.  Livingston  of  the 
committee,  appointed  on  the  18th,  reported  that  “the  Legislature 
of  the  United  States  shall  have  power  to  di.scharge  as  well  the 
debts  of  the  United  States  as  the  debts  incurred  by  the  several 
States  during  the  late  war.”  The  report  was  postponed. 

On  the  next  day  Mr.  Morris  moved  to  amend  Mr.  Livingston's  re- 
port so  that  it  would  read  as  follows:  “The  Legislature  shall  fulfill 
the  engagements  and  discharge  the  debts  of  the  United  States,” 
thus  striking  out  the  State  debts.  This  was  agreed  to  unanimously. 
—El.  Deb.,  I,  256-57. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


101 


animated  debate.”  An  amendment  to  allow  the  public 
creditors  only  the  then  market  value  of  their  paper — 
one-eighth  of  its  face  value — -“was  opposed  by  Messrs. 
Boudinot,  of  New  Jersey;  Lawrence,  Ames,  and  Good- 
hue,  of  Massachusetts;  Hartley,  of  Pennsylvania;  and 
Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  and  was  defeated.” 

“Mr.  Madison,”  says  Marshall,  “then  proposed  to  pay 
the  present  holder  of  assignable  paper  the  market  price, 
and  give  the  remainder” — seven-eighths  of  its  face 
value — “to  the  original  holder.  This  was  opposed  hy 
Messrs.  Sedgwick,  Lawrence,  Ames,  Gerry,  and  Good- 
hue,  of  Massachusetts;  Boudioot,  of  New  Jersey;  Hart- 
ley, of  Pennsylvania;  Livermore,  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  others,  and  was  negatived.  * * 

“ In  the  course  of  the  debate  severe  allusions  were 
made  to  the  conduct  of  particular  States;  and  the  opin- 
ions advanced  in  support  of  the  measure  were  ascribed 
to  local  interests. 

‘ ‘ After  an  animated  discussion  of  several  days,  the 
question  was  taken,  and  the  resolution  was  carried  by 
a small  majority ; but  soon  afterwards  the  delegation 
from  North  Carolina  took  their  seats  and  changed  the 
strength  of  the  parties.  By  a majority  of  two  voices  ” — 
31  to  29 — “ the  resolution  was  recommitted  and  nega- 
tived. 

“A  proposition  to  assume  specific  sums  from  each 
State  was  then  urged,  but  with  no  better  success.” 

Now,  laying  aside  Marshall  for  awhile  and  turning  to 
Maclay’s  Journal,  we  get  a better  insight  into  the  mo-' 
tives  and  manoeuvers  of  the  plotters.  His  account  be- 
gins some  four  months  before  Hamilton’s  plans  were 
submitted  to  the  Congress.  We  quote  extracts : 

“August  28,  1789.  There  was  a meeting  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania delegation.  * The  Chief  Justice  of 

Pennsylvania  and  Mr.  Petit” — Chairman  of  the  Public 


102 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Creditors — “ attended  with  a memorial  from  the  public 
creditors.  * But  it  seems  there  was  a further 

design  in  the  meeting.  Mr.  Morris”  (Maclay’s  col- 
league) “attended  to  deliver  proposals  from  Mr.  Hamil- 
ton on  the  part  of  the  New  England  men,  etc.  Now, 
after  the  Eastern  members  have  in  the  basest  manner 
deserted  the  Pennsylvanians,^  they  would  come  forward 
with  proposals  from  Mr.  Hamilton.  * * * j spoke 

early,  and  declared  that  * * * their  ouly  view  was 

to  get  a negotiation  on  foot  between  them  and  the' 
Pennsylvanians  that  they  might  break  the  connection 
that  is  begun  between  the  Pennsylvanians  and  the 
Southern  people.  * 

“January  11,  1790.  This  day  the  ‘budget’  as  it  is 
called” — Hamilton’s  report — “was  opened  in  the  House 
of  Representatives.  An  extraordinary  rise  in  certificates 
has  been  remarked  for  some  time  past.  This  could  not 
be  accounted  for,  neither  in  Philadelphia  nor  elsewhere. 
But  the  report  from  the  Treasury  explained  all.  * " 

’Tis  said  a committee  of  speculators  in  certificates  could 
not  have  formed  it  more  for  their  advantage. 

“January  15.  The  business  of  yesterday  will,  I think, 
in  all  probability  damn  the  character  of  Hamilton  for- 
ever. It  appears  that  a system  of  engrossing”  (buying 
up)  “ certificates  has  been  carrying  on  for  some  time. 
Whispers  of  tliis  kind  come  from  every  quarter.  Dr. 
Elmer”  (New  Jersey  Senator)  “told  me  that  Mr.  Morris 
must  be  deep  in  it.  for  his  partner,  Mr.  Constable,  of 
•this  place”  (New  York),  “had  one  contract  for  forty 
thousand  dollars.  The  Speaker”  i Muhlenberg,  of  Penn- 
sylvania, who  roomed  in  the  same  building  with  Mac- 
lay)  “hinted  to  me  that  General  Heister”  (a  Pennsylva- 
nia Representative)  “had  brought  over  a sum  of  money 


' Maclay  refei’s  to  the  bargain*  between  the  speculators  and  the 
advocates  of  certain  jdaces  for  the  location  of  tlie  Federal  Capital. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


103 


from  Mr.  Morris  for  this  business;  he  said  the  Boston 
people  were  concerned  in  it.  * * * Mr.  Langdon  ” 

(Senator  from  New  Hampshire),  “ the  old  and  intimate 
friend  of  Mr.  Morris,  lodges  wdth  Mr.  Hazard.  Mr. 
Hazard  has  followed  buying  certificates  for  some  time 
past.  He  told  me  he  had  made  a business  of  it ; it  is 
easy  to  guess  for  whom.  I told  him,  ‘You  are,  then, 
among  the  happy  few  who  have  been  let  into  the  secret.  ’ 
He  seemed  abashed,  etc. 

“ The  Speaker  gives  me  this  day  his  opinion  that  Mr. 
Fitzsimmons,”  (of  Pennsylvania,  Chairman  of  the  Wa5*s 
and  Means  Committee  in  the  House  of  Representatives) 
“ was  concerned  in  this  business.  * * * 

“January  18.  Hawkins,  of  North  Carolina”  (who 
took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  five  days  before  this),  “ said 
as  he  came  up  from  his  home  he  passed  two  expresses 
with  very  large  sums  of  money  on  their  way  to  North 
Carolina  for  purposes  of  speculation  in  certificates. 
Wadsworth  ” (a  Connecticut  Representative)  “ has  sent 
off  two  small  vessels  for  the  Southern  States,  on  the 
errand  of  buying  up  certificates.  I really  fear  the 'mem- 
bers of  Congress  are  deeper  in  this  business  than  any 
others.  ^ 

“ February  1.  Mr.  Hamilton  is  veiy  uneasy,  as  far  as 
I can  learn,  about  his  funding  system.  He  vvas  here” 
(at  the  boarding  house)  “ early  to  wait  on  the  Speaker, 
and  I believe  spent  most  of  his  time  in  running  fi-om 
place  to  place  among  the  members. 

“February  15.  '''■  Sedgwick,  Lawrence,  Smith 

and  Ames  took  the  whole  day.  They  seemed  to  aim  all 

' The  people  outside,  including  those  in  the  Southern  States,  were 
kept  in  ignorance  of  what  was  going  on  in  Congress.  A s late  as 
February  25,  1791,  a motion  to  open  the  doors  of  the  Senate  to  the 
public  was  defeated. — Maclay,  page  401. 


104 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


at  one  point,  to  make  Madison  ridiculous.  ^ Ames  * * 
had  ‘public  faith, ’ ‘public  credit,’  ‘honor,  and  above  all, 
justice’  as  often  over  as  an  Indian  would  the  ‘Great 
Spirit,  ’ and,  if  possible,  with  less  meaning  and  to  as  lit- 
tle purpose. 

“ February  19.  * * ^ funding  system  will  be 

the  consequence— that  political  gout  of  every  govern- 
ment which  has  adopted  it. 

“ With  all  our  Western  lands  for  sale  and  purchasers 
every  day  attending  at  the  Hall  begging  for  contracts  1 
What  villainy  to  cast  the  debt  on  posterity ! But  pay 
the  debt!  The  speculators  who  now  have  them  nearly 
all  engrossed,  will  clear  above  three  hundred  per  cent. 

“ February  22.  ^ Fitzsimmons  gave  me  no- 
tice of  a meeting  of  the  Pennsylvania  delegation.  " * 

I went.  The  ostensible  reason  was  to  consult  on  the 
adoption  of  the  State  debts,  but  the  fact  to  tell  us  that 
they  were  predetermined  to  do  it.  Mr.  Morris  swore 
‘By  G — it  must  be  done.’  2 ^ * 

“ March  2.  - * - The  Speaker  was  at  the  (Presi- 

dent’s) levee  to-day.  When  he  came  home,  he  said  the 
State  debts  must  be  adopted.  This,  I suppose,  is  the 
language  of  the  Court. 

“ March  9.  In  the  Senate  chamber  this  morning  But- 
ler (South  Carolina)  said  he  heard  a man  say  he  would 
give  Viniug  (Delaware’s  Eepresentative)  one  thousand 
guineas  for  his  vote.  * * At  length  they  risked 


* This  was  because  he  proposed  to  pay  the  difference  between  the 
face  and  the  market  price  of  certificates  to  the  original  holders. 

- This  interesting  information  is  taken  from  Alden's  Cyclopoedia : 
“He  (Morris)  w'as  elected,  1788,  to  the  first  Senate.  * * * The 

office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  offered  him  by  President  Wash- 
ington on  the  formation  of  his  first  Cabinet,  was  declined  with  the 
recommendation  that  Alexander  Hamilton  be  appointed,'’  Mr.  Mor- 
ris having  “been  familiar  with  his  views  cn  the  National  finances 
since  1781.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


105 


the  question,  and  carried  it,  thirty -one  votes  to  twenty- 
six;  * * and  this  only  in  Committee  (of  the 

Whole),  with  many  doubts  that  some  will  fly  off  (on  a 
roll  call),  and  great  fears  that  the  North  Carolina  mem- 
bers will  be  in  before  a bill  can  be  matured  or  a report 
gone  through. 

“ March  29.  * * * This  day  the  House  of  Repre- 

sentatives took  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  Secretary’s  report;  and  after 
adopting  the  first  three  clauses  (funding  the  Federal  cer- 
tificates), recommitted  the  one  on  the  assumption  of  the 
State  debts — tw'enty-nine  to  twenty-seven;  so  that  I 
hope  this  will  be  rejected  at  last. 

“April  3.  * * * The  New  England  men  despair 

of  being  able  to  saddle  us  with  their  debts,  and  now 
they  care  not  whether  they  do  any  business  or  not. 

“April  12.  * * * The  question  was,  however, 

taken  and  lost,  thirty-one  against  it  aud  twenty-nine 
for  it,  * * * Sedgwick,  from  Boston,  pronounced 

a funeral  oration  over  it.  * * * Fitzsimmons  red- 
dened like  scarlet  * * Clymer’s  (Penn.)  color, 

always  pale,  now  verged  to  a deadly  w'hite.  * 

Benson  (New  York)  bungled  like  a shoemaker  who  has 
lost  his  end.  Ames’s  aspect  * - was  torpid,  as  if 
his  faculties  had  been  benumbed.  Gerry  exhibited  the 
advantages  of  a cadaverous  appearance.  * * * 

Through  an  interruption  of  hectic  lines  and  consump- 
tive coughs  he  delivered  himself  of  a declaration  that 
the  delegates  of  Massachusetts  would  proceed  no  further 
(withdraw  from  Congress),  but  send  to  their  State  for 
instructions.  Happy  impudence  sat  enthroned  on  Law- 
rence’s brow.  * * * Wadsworth  hid  his  grief  un- 
der the  rim  of  a round  hat.  * 

“April  26.  This  day  Mr.  Clymer  (Pennsylvania)  made 
his  famous  speech  for  throwing  away  the  Western  world. 


106 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


A noble  sacrifice,  truly,  to  gratify  the  public  creditors 
of  Philadelphia.  Reject  territory  of  an  extent  of  an  em- 
pire so  that  it  may  be  out  of  the  power  of  Congress  to 
oblige  the  public  creditors  to  take  any  part  of  it.” 

Thus  Maclay’s  Journal  reaches  the  point  where  we 
dropped  Marshall — the  point  where  the  latter  proceeds 
as  follows: 

“ In  this  state  of  things  the  measure  is  understood  to 
have  derived  aid  from  another,  which  was  of  a nature 
to  strongly  interest  particular  parts  of  the  Union.  ^ ^ 

“ From  the  month  of  June,  1786,  when  the  Continen- 
tal Congress  ” — it  was  the  Congress  of  the  Confedera- 
tion— “was  driven  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York  by 
a mutiny  of  a part  of  the  Pennsylvania  line,”  much 
feeling  had  been  manifested  in  various  sections  with  ref- 
erence to  the  permanent  seat  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. 

“At  length  a compact  respecting  the  temporary  and 
permanent  seat  of  Government  was  entered  into  be- 
tween the  friends  of  Philadelphia  and  the  Potomac, 
whereby  it  was  stipulated  that  the  Congress  should  ad- 
journ to  and  hold  their  sessions  in  Philadelphia  for  ten 
years,  during  which  time  buildings  should  be  ei’ected  at 
some  place  to  be  selected  on  the  Potomac;  and  a bill 
which  was  brought  forward  in  the  Senate  * 

passed  both  Houses  by  small  majorities.  ‘ This  act  ivas 
immecliately  folloived  by  an  amendment  to  the  funding 
hiUd' — consideration  of  which  had  been  postponed  till 
the  bargain  could  be  consummated — “assuming  tweuty- 

1 It  passed  the  Senate  by  14  to  13;  and  of  its  passage  in  the  House, 
Hildreth  (Sec.  Ser.,  I.  313)  says:  “ But  as  the  secret  of  the  bargain 
of  which  it  formed  a part  had  been  communicated  to  a few  only  of 
the  Northern  members,  just  sufficient  to  secure  its  passage,  it  then 
encountered  a violent  opposition.  The  yeas  and  nays  were  called 
upon  it  no  less  than  thirteen  times,  and  it  finally  passed  only  by  the 
close  vote  of  33  to  39.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


107 


one  millions  five  hundred  thousand  dollars  of  the  debts 
of  the  States;  and  in  the  House  two  members  represent- 
ing districts  on  the  Potomac,  who  had  all  along  voted 
against  the  assumption,  declared  themselves  in  its  favor, 
a,nd  the  majorit}^  was  changed.” 

Thus  closes  Marshall’s  report  of  the  proceedings  on 
page  260  of  the  fifth  volume.  The  effect  of  this  legisla- 
tion is  not  touched  upon  till  we  reach  page  299.  There 
he  says:  “As  an  inevitable  effect  of  the  state  of  society, 
the  public  debt  had  greatly  accumulated  in  the  Middle 
and  Northern  States,  whose  inhabitants  had  derived 
from  its  rapid  appreciation  a proportional  augmentation 
of  their  wealth.  ’ ’ 

The  augmentation  of  their  wealth  can  be  appreciated 
when  we  examine  the  reports  of  the  Treasury.  The  dis- 
bursements during  the  first  seven  administrations,  in- 
cluding those  for  the  Louisiana  purchase,  the  War  of 
1812,  and  the  purchase  of  Florida,  are  given  on  page 
1,519,  Volume  2,  of  the  Statesman’s  Manual,  as  follows: 


Administration.  Ordinary  Expenses.  Public  Debt. 

Washington’s $15,893,708  $36,090,946 

J.  Adams’s 21,348,351  18,957,962 

Jefferson’s 41,100,787  65,186,398 

Madisons 144,684,939  83,428,942 

Monroe’s 104,363.446  101,366,111 

J.  Q.  Adams’s 50,501,914  45,303.533 

Jackson’s 144,546,404  65,533,603 


Of  these  disbursements  the  ordinary  expenses  during 
the  first  three  administrations  were  $78,311,846,  and  the 
public  debt  payments  were  $120,235,306;  and  since  the 
total  debt  in  1791  was  $76,161,000,  of  which  the  por- 
tion due  to  foreigners  was  $11,700,000,  80  per  cent  of 
this  $120,235,306,  or  $101,000,000,  was  the  share  of 
Northern  speculators,  whereas  they  were  entitled  to 
only  one-eighth  of  this  sum,  or  $12,625,000.  Their  clear 
gain,  therefore,  since  the  average  population  for  the  first 


108 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


three  censuses  was  5,492,526,  was  about  880  out  of  the 
pockets  of  every  average  family  of  five  persons,  includ- 
ing all  the  slaves. 

The  reader  is  no  doubt  surprised  that  Pre.sident  W ash- 
ington  approved  such  a measure ; but  if  he  could  realize 
the  dangers  threatening  the  Union  if  the  bill  had  been 
vetoed,  his  surprise  would  vanish.  Maclay  says,  March 
22,  1790,  that  “ there  seems  to  be  a general  discontent 
among  the  members,  and  many  of  them  do  not  hesitate 
to  declare  that  the  Union  must  fall  to  pieces  at  the  rate 
we  go  on.”  On  July  1,  1790,  Senator  Rufus  King,  of 
New  York,  disappointed  in  his  efforts  to  have  Congress 
remain  in  the  city  of  New  York,  “sobbed,  wiped  his  eyes, 
and  scolded  and  railed  and  accused  * of  bar- 

gaining, contracting  arrangements  and  engagements 
that  would  dissolve  the  Union.”  On  July  16,  after  it 
had  been  decided  that  Congress  should  go  to  Philadel- 
phia for  ten  years,  Maclay  says:  “ I whispered  to  Mr. 
Morris,  now  he  had  got  the  residence  (of  Congress),  it 
was  our  province  to  guard  the  Union  and  promote  the 
strength  of  the  Union  by  every  means  in  our  power, 
otherwise  our  prize  would  be  a blank.”  On  July  18  Mr. 
Morris  said  to  the  Pennsylvania  delegation  that,  if  Con- 
gress adjourned  without  passing  the  funding  and  as- 
sumption measures,  “ it  might  go  to  shake  and  injure 
the  Government  itself.” 

The  alarm  created  by  the  hungry  speculators,  of  which 
the  present  generation  can  have  no  adequate  concep- 
tion, included  even  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  Secretary  of  State, 
among  its  victims,  and  forced  him  into  silence,  if  not 
acquiescence. ' 


* “ Jefferson  complains  in  his  Ana  that,  having  but  lately  arrived 
in  New  York”  (he  entered  upon  his  duties  as  Secretary  of  State 
March  22,  1790,  tw’o  months  and  eight  days  after  Hamilton's  fimding 
scheme  was  proposed),  “he  was  'most  ignorantly  and  innocently 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


109 


So  it  was  almost  a case  of  “ stand  and  deliver!” 
“Give  us  the  privilege  of  being  quartei’ed  on  the  peo- 
ple, or  we  will  disrupt  the  Union,  which  is  so  dear  to 
your  heart!” 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  here  that,  as  Jefferson 
said,  “this  measure  produced  the  most  bitter  and  angry 
contest  ever  known  in  Congress  before  or  since  the  un- 
ion of  the  States,”  or  that  it  engendered  in  the  hearts 
of  the  Southern  people  a resentment  against  its  authors 
as  well  as  its  beneficiaries,  which  was  handed  down 
from  father  to  son  long  after  the  cause  of  it  had  become 
a shadowy  tradition,  or  that  the  quiet  submission  of  the 
masses  of  the  people  to  this  and  other  subsequent  acts 
of  sectional  injustice  was  due  mainly  to  their  want  of 
understanding  as  to  the  method  of  taxing  them.  If  the 
burden  had  been  understood,  as  the  whiskey  tax  was  in 
Western  Pennsylvania,  the  President  might  have  needed 
more  than  16,000  troops  to  put  down  the  insurrection. 

Nor  is  it  necessary  to  point  out  the  immense  superi- 

made  to  ‘ hold  the  candle’  in  this  intrigue,  being  duped  into  it  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  made  a tool  of  for  forwarding  his 
schemes,  not  then  sufficiently  understood.  Hamiltoir,  it  seems,  ap- 
plied to  Jefferson  for  his  aid  and  cooperation  as  a member  of  the 
Cabinet  in  calming  an  excitement,  and  bringing  about  the  settle- 
ment of  a question  which  seemed  to  threaten  the  very  existence  of 
the  Federal  Government.  Jefferson  proposed  to  Hamilton  to  dine 
with  him  next  day,  on  which  occasion  he  would  invite  another 
friend  or  two  to  see  whether  it  'were  not  possible,  by  some  mutual 
sacrifice  of  opinion,  to  form  a compromise  to  save  the  Union.’  At 
this  dinner  party  the  subject  was  discussed.  Jefferson,  as  he  assures 
us,  taking  ‘no  part  but  an  exhortatory  one’ ; and  finally  it  was 
agreed  that,  for  the  sake  of  the  Union,  White  and  Lee,  two  of  the 
Virginia  members,  should  change  their  votes  on  the  question  of  as- 
sumption.”— Hildreth,  Second  Series,  Volume  I,  pages  211-12. 

But  Mr.  Jefferson’s  name  was  used  by  the  promoters  of  the  cor- 
ruj)t  bargain,  and  he  was  represented  to  be  one  of  their  supporters. 
“Mr.  Morris,”  says  Maclay,  page  294,  “also  repeated  Mr.  Jefferson’s 
story,  but  I certainly  had  misunderstood  Mr.  Morris  at  the  Hall,  for 
Jefferson  vouched  for  nothing.” 


no 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


ority  of  the  Northern  States  in  banking  facilities,  con- 
ferred on  them  by  this  act,  or  their  superior  ability  in 
manufacturing  when  “protection”  began  to  invite  cap- 
ital into  that  business. 

But  there  was  a lesson  in  this  vile  business  far  more 
damaging  than  its  injustice;  it  taught  corrupt  schemers 
that  the  forms  of  law  could  be  used  as  a means  of  rob- 
bing the  people,  while  the  Constitution  provided  no 
tribunal  before  which  their  cause  could  be  pleaded. 
And  this  lesson  became  “the  direful  spring  of  woes  un- 
numbered”; it  laid  the  foundations  of  the  long  strug- 
gle for  sectional  supremacy.  If  “ justice,”  “ domestic 
tranquillity,”  “the  common  defense,”  “the  general 
welfare,”  and  “ the  blessings  of  liberty  ” had  been  the 
sole  object  of  Federal  legislation,  there  could  not  possi- 
bly have  been  any  motive  for  sectional  discontent,  and 
the  long  and  disgraceful  struggle  for  sectional  domina- 
tion, rendered  more  disgraceful  during  the  last  forty 
years  by  malignity,  mendacity  and  insolence.' 


'Washington's  anxiety  for  the  presei'vation  of  the  Union,  which 
such  legislation  as  this  was  threatening  to  destroy,  was  his  leading 
motive  for  accepting  a second  term.  Jefferson  wrote  to  him:  “The 
conlidence  of  the  whole  country  is  centered  in  yon.  - * - North 

and  South  will  hang  together  if  they  have  you  to  hang  on.”  And 
Hamilton  wrote:  “It  is  clear  that  if  you  coutiruie  in  office  nothing 
materially  mischievous  is  to  be  apprehended;  if  you  quit.  m.ich  is 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Ill 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  UNITED  STATES  BANK — ANOTHER  SCHEME  TO 
ENRICH  NORTHERN  TRADERS. 

In  order  to  still  further  “strengthen  the  public  credit” 
and  enhance  the  value  of  the  public  securities,  the  first 
Congress,  under  the  advice  of  Secretary  Hamilton,  con- 
verted Robert  Morris’s  Rank  of  North  America  into 
The  Bank  of  the  United  States.  There  was  no  Consti- 
tutional authority  for  such  an  act;  indeed,  the  power 
to  do  it  was  deliberately  withheld  in  the  fi  aming  of  the 
Constitution;  hut  it  accorded  with  the  views  of  Mr. 
Hamilton  thus  expressed  in  the  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion: “We  must  establish  a general  and  National  Gov- 
ernment, completely  sovereign,  and  annihilate  the  State 
distinctions  and  State  operations;  and  unless  we  do 
this,  no  good  purpose  can  be  answered.’’*  It  was  in 
fact,  as  President  Jackson  said  in  his  seventh  annual 
message,  “but  one  of  the  fruits  of  a system  at  war  with 
the  genius  of  all  our  institutions — a system  founded 
upon  a political  creed  " * whose  great  ultimate 

object,  and  inevitable  result,  should  it  prevail,  is  the 
consolidation  of  all  powers  in  our  system  in  one  central 
government.  ” 

As  on  the  question  of  assumption,  the  division  was 
mainly  between  the  North  and  the  South.  The  prin- 
cipal advocates  of  the  charter  in  the  Senate,  according 
to  Maclay,  were  King,  of  New  York;  Ellsworth,  of 
Connecticut;  and  Strong,  of  Massachusetts;  and  the 
leading  opponents  were  Izard  and  Butler,  of  South 
Carolina,  and  Monroe,  of  Virginia. 

The  capital  of  the  bank  was  to  be  $10,000,000,  of 
which  the  Federal  Treasury  was  to  subscribe  $2,000,000 


‘ Yates,  page  141. 


112 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


in  specie,  and  private  stockholders  to  subscribe  the 
remaining  $8,000,000,  one-fourth  of  it  in  specie  and 
three-fourths  of  it  in  public  securities  or  “certificates”  ; 
but  since  the  certificates  at  that  time,  according  to 
Maclay,  were  worth  only  81^  per  cent  of  their  nominal 
value,  here  was  a “gratuity,”  as  President  Jackson 
called  it  in  his  message  vetoing  the  bank  bill,  “ of  many 
millions  of  dollars  to  the  stockholders.” 

This  was  in  principle  as  vile  a scheme  of  robbery  as 
the  assumption  was;  and  justly  did  President  Jackson 
denounce  its  authors  in  the  following  language  (eighth 
annual  message) : “The  facts  that  the  value  of  the  stock 
was  greatly  enhanced  by  the  creation  of  the  bank,  that 
it  was  well  understood  that  such  w'ould  be  the  case,  and 
that  some  of  the  advocates  of  the  measure  were  largely 
benefited  by  it,  belong  to  the  history  of  the  times,  and 
are  well  calculated  to  diminish  the  respect  which  might 
otherwise  have  been  due  to  the  action  of  the  Congress 
which  created  the  Institution.” 

The  meagre  report  of  the  discussion  of  the  measure 
in  the  Senate,  and  of  the  conduct  of  some  of  the  mem- 
bers— especially  his  colleague — reveals  a deep  disgust  in 
Maclay,  and  warrants  the  following  remark:  “I  am  now 
more  fully  convinced  than  ever  before  of  the  propriety 
of  opening  our  doors.  I am  confident  some  gentlemen 
would  have  been  ashamed  to  have  seen  their  speeches  of 
this  day  reflected  in  the  newspapers  of  to-morrow. ' ' 

The  amount  of  wealth  belonging  to  other  people  thus 
transferred  to  the  traders  and  speculators  of  the  Xorth- 
ern  States  can  never  be  asceitained ; but  since  they  drew 
6 per  cent  on  their  certificates  out  of  the  Federal  Treas- 
ury, and  at  least  twice  as  much  on  the  bank  notes  issued 
on  the  certificates  as  a basis  of  circulation,  their  income 
from  the  certificates  was  about  22  per  cent  of  their  value 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


113 


at  the  time  of  their  subscription;  and,  as  this  was  an 
annual  increment  for  many  years,  we  may  believe  that 
this  bank  was  one  among  the  powerful  forces  which 
transferred  the  money  of  the  South  to  the  traders  and 
speculators  of  the  North,  and  thus  weakened  the  ties 
which  bound  the  Southern  States  to  the  Union. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


Hi 


CHAPTER  X. 

REVOLUTIONARY  PENSIONERS — ANOTHER  AVENUE  OF 
APPROACH  TO  THE  PEOPLE’S  TREASURY. 

Among  the  avenues  of  approach  to  the  pockets  of  the 
Southern  people  pension  legislation  was  at  an  early  day 
found  to  be  safe  and  easy.  And  it  was  soon  thronged, 
as  it  is  to-day,  by  the  undeserving  as  well  as  the  deserv- 
ing. 

The  evidence  on  this  point  is  here  copied  from  a 
speech  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 
June  28,  185i,  by  Senator  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  in 
a debate  with  Senator  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts..  It 
was  an  extract  from  a pamphlet  written  by  a Virgin- 
ian, Mr.  Garnett.  ^ It  is  here  condensed  as  follows : 

“ The  white  male  population  over  sixteen  years  of 
age  in  1790  (the  first  census)  was  in  Pennsylvania 
110,788,  and  in  Virginia  110,931: ; yet  according  to  Gen- 
eral Knox's  (Secretary  of  War)  official  estimate,  pre- 
sented to  the  first  Congress,  Virginia  furnished  50.721 
soldiers  to  the  Revolution,  and  Pennsylvania  only  31,- 
965.  New  Hampshire  had  a military  population  513 
larger  than  South  Carolina,  yet  she  contributed  only 
11:,906  soldiers  to  South  Carolina's  31,131.  South  Car- 
olina’s exceeded  New  York's  29,836,  though  New  York 
had  much  more  than  double  the  military  population, 
and  1-0  per  cent  moj-e  of  total  population.  Connecticut 
and  Massachusetts  did  more  than  any  of  the  free  States: 
yet  we  find  that  while  South  Carolina  sent  to  its  armies 
37  out  of  eveiy  1-2  citizens  capable  of  bearing  arras. 
Massachusetts  sent  hut  32.  Connecticut  30,  and  New 
Hampshire  18. 

' Perhaps  Robert  S.  Garnett,  a Representative  in  Congress  from 
1817  to  1827. 


.THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


115 


“We  will  pass  at  once  to  consider  the  action  of  the 
Federal  Government,  and  its  value  to  the  North  when 
the  South  was  no  longer  her  own  mistress.  The  pen- 
sion system  throws  a strong  light  on  the  tendency  of 
the  people  of  the  free  States  to  quarter  themselves  on 
the  general  Government.  A calculation,  founded  on 
data  in  Senate  Document  307,  1838-’39,  shows  that 
from  1791  to  1838,  inclusive,  $35,598,964:  had  been  paid 
for  Revolutionary  pensions,  of  which  the  North  received 
$28,262,597,  or  $127.29  for  every  soldier  she  had  in  the 
war,  and  the  South  $7,336,365,  or  $49.89  for  each  of  her 
soldiers.  The  number  of  soldiers  is  here  estimated  ac- 
cording to  Knox’s  report,  which  confessedly  does  not 
show,  by  a great  deal,  the  full  exertions  of  the  South 
in  raising  troops.  ‘ Let  us  then  compare  the  amounts 
received  with  the  white  population  of  each  section  in 
1790;  and  we  find  the  free  States  in  1838  had  received 
$14.35  of  Revolutionary  pensions  for  every  soul  in  their 
limits  in  the  former  year,  wfiiile  the  South  had  received 
only  $5.61  for  every  white  person  in  1790. 

The  seven  fz’ee  States  contributed  to  the  expenses  of  the 


war,  §61,971,170 

They  had  received  in  pensions  up  to  1838,  - - - 28,262,597 

Balance  in  their  favor, 38,708,573 

The  six  slave  States  contributed,  . . - - - 52,438,123 

They  had  received  in  pensions  up  to  1838,  ■ ■ - 7,336,367 

Balance  iiz  their  favor, 45,101,756 


“To  appreciate  this  injustice  fully  we  must  remember 

' Hundreds  of  gentlemen  here  and  there  in  the  South  volunteered 
for  .special  occasions — as  to  meet  the  British  at  King’s  Mountain — 
and  failed  to  preserve  records  of  their  services;  and  General  Knox 
.says  that,  “in  some  years  of  the  greatest  exerlion  of  the  Southern 
States,  there  are  no  returns  whatever  of  the  militia.” — American 
State  Papers,  Military  Affairs,  Volume  I,  page  14.  ' 


116  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 

that  the  South  not  only  jDaid  into  the  Federal  Treasury 
all  she  ever  received  back  in  pensions,  but  also  816,663,- 
633  of  the  pensions  given  to  the  North.  The  inequality 
of  the  apportionment  has  grown  with  the  Northern 
majority  in  Congress.  In  the  first  decennial  period, 
1791-1800,  the  free  States  received  annually  858,000 
more  than  the  South.  In  the  next  period  this  yearly 
excess  was  diminished  to  813,000,  but  it  rose  to  8339,- 
000  in  the  third  period.  From  1821  to  1830  it  averaged 
$779,000,  and  from  1831  to  1838,  8855,000.  In  like 
manner  grew  the  burden  upon  the  South  in  paying  the 
pensioners  at  the  North,  besides  those  at  home.  In  the 
last  period  of  eight  years  it  was  89,750,000. 

“According  to  General  Knox’s  report  the  North  sent  to 
the  army  100  men  for  every  227  of  military  age  in  1790, 
and  the  South  100  for  every  209.  But  in  1818  one  out 
of  every  62  of  military  age  in  1790  was  a Eevolutionary 
pensioner  in  the  North,  and  only  one  out  of  every  110 
in  the  South.  New  England  alone  had  3,116  of  these 
pensioners  more  than  there  were  in  all  the  slave  States : 
and  New  York  two-thirds  as  many,  though  she  contrib- 
uted not  one-seventh  as  much  to  the  war. 

“The  results  are  equally  remarkable,  if  we  have  re- 
gard to  the  whole  number  of  pensionei’s.  Revolutionary 
and  others.  The  expenses  under  this  head  for  the  four 
years  ending  in  1837,  were  88,010,051  in  the  free  States, 
and  $2,588,101  in  the  slave  States.  New  England  alone 
received  $3,921,911,  rather  more  than  $2  a head  for 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  her  limits.  During  the 
same  four  years  she  paid  in  taxes  to  the  Federal  Treas- 
ury, according  to  our  tables, ' 81.72  per  head.  In  1810 
there  were  not  quite  two  and  one-half  times  as  many 
pensioners  at  the  North  as  at  the  South,  but  in  1818 


Mr.  Garnett’s  Pamphlet  has  not  been  found. 


^THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


117 


there  were  more  than  three  times  as  many.  New  Eng- 
land had  more  Eevolutionary  pensioners  than  the  five 
old  plantation  States  had  pensioners  of  all  kinds” — 
Eevolution,  War  of  1812,  Indian  wars,  etc. 

So,  it  seems,  the  soldiers  of  the  North  who  fought  in 
the  Eevolution  were  quartered  on  the  South  just  as  those 
who  “saved  the  life  of  the  Nation”  have  been,  though 
not  to  the  same  extent.  And  there  is  no  ground  for 
surprise  at  the  following  remark  of  Senator  Butler  in 
the  speech  referred  to  above : 

“ The  truth  is,  it  is  a wonder  that  South  Carolina  ever 
went  to  the  rescue  of  Boston.  Boston  made  the  war 
with  Great  Britain.  She  was  the  first.” 

It  also  appears  that  after  Massachusetts  had  precipi- 
tated a conflict  with  Great  Britain,  and  appealed  for  co- 
operation to  the  other  Colonies,  South  Carolina  sent  to 
the  war  88  per  cent  of  her  military  population  while 
Massachusetts  sent  only  76  per  cent,  although  Massa- 
chusetts was  engaged  in  active  hostilities  several  months 
before  South  Carolina  was. 

And,  dear  reader,  this  magnanimous  recognition  of 
‘ ‘ the  cause  of  Boston  as  the  cause  of  all  ’ ’ was  after- 
wards held  to  be,  ipso  facto,  a renunciation  of  South 
Carolina’s  sovereignty;  and  the  pretension  was  sup- 
ported not  only  by  argument  but  by  fire  and  sword,  and 
shot  and  shell ! 

Note. — Since  the  foregoing  was  written  the  docu- 
ment referred  to  (Senate,  No.  307,  third  session.  Twenty- 
fifth  Congress)  has  been  examined.  It  presents  some 
interesting  tables,  of  which  the  following  is  reproduced 
here  as  a sample,  the  States  being  rearranged  so  as  to 
preserve  the  distinction  between  the  North  and  the 
South  which  was  made  by  Mr.  Garnett. 


118  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

In  1820  pension  disbursements  were  as  follows: 

In  New  Hampshire, §130.116 

Vermont, 128,093 

Massachusetts, 222,114 

Rhode  Island,  - - . .....  22,603 

Connecticut,  • ■ - - - - - - 120,722 

New  York, - - 378,806 

New  Jersey,  - 42,244 

Pennsylvania, 135,832 

Ohio,  74,914 


Total  for  the  North,  1,255,444 

In  Delaware,  - 86,262 

Maryland,  44,3.58 

Virginia,  - - 74,212 

North  Carolina, - 21,843 

South  Carolina, 12,881 

Georgia,  - 6,206 

Tennessee, 28,078 

Kentucky,  .........  55,064 


Total  for  the  South,  - - ....  248,899 


Now,  the  number  of  soldiers  furnished  by  the  two 
sections,  according  to  General  Knox,  was,  in  round 
numbers,  222,000  by  the  North,  and  117,000  by  the 
South;  and  a simple  calculation  shows  that  this  pen- 
sion money  was  equal  to  §5.65  for  every  soldier  of  the 
North,  and  §1.69  for  every  soldier  of  the  South.  And 
from  the  contemplation  of  this  marked  difference  be- 
tween the  men  of  the  two  sections  in  the  purpose  to 
have  themselves  quartered,  even  deservedly,  on  the 
taxpayers  of  the  Union,  the  mind  instinctively  turns  to 
that  great  Southern  man  who  refused  any  salary  as 
commander-in-chief  of  the  military  forces  of  the  States, 
and  afterwards  as  President  of  the  United  States. ' 


’People  who  are  not  familiar  with  pension  legislation  will  be  in- 
terested in  knowing  that  the  claims  of  applicants  who  can  not  come 
in  under  general  laws  are  referred  to  a Pension  Committee,  and.  if  a 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


119 


favorable  report  is  made,  a special  act  is  usually  passed  placing  the 
applicant  on  the  pension  roll.  Such  is  the  chief  business  now  of 
Friday  night  sessions,  and  has  been  for  over  thirty  years. 

But  how  the  Revolutionary  soldiers  cf  the  North  got  themselves 
quartered  on  the  South  may  possibly  be  explained  by  the  following 
remarks  of  President  J.  Q.  Adams  in  his  first  annual  message; 

“The  operation  of  the  laws  relating  to  the  Revolutionary  pen- 
sioners may  deserve  the  renewed  consideration  of  Congress.  The 
Act  of  18th  of  March,  1818,  while  it  made  provision  tor  many  mei’i- 
torious  and  indigent  citizens  who  had  served  in  the  war  of  indepen- 
dence, oitened  a door  to  numerous  abuses  and  impositions.  To 
remedy  this,  the  Act  of  1st  May,  1820,  exacted  proofs  of  ab.solute 
indigence,  which  many  really  in  want  were  unable,  and  all  suscep- 
tible of  that  delicacy  which  is  allied  to  many  virtues,  must  be  deeply 
reluctant  to  give.  The  result  has  been,  that  some  among  the  least 
deserving  have  been  retained,  and  some  in  whom  the  requisites  both 
of  worth  and  want  were  combined,  have  been  stricken  from  the 
list.’’ — Stats.  Man.,  Volume  I,  page  587. 


120 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

UNJUST  AND  UNCONSTITUTIONAL  DISPOSAL  OF  THE 
PUBLIC  LANDS. 

From  the  unfair  distribution  of  pension  disbursements 
we  proceed  to  a phase  of  sectional  legislation  far  more 
reprehensible,  and  far  more  damaging  to  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States,  particularly  those  of  the  original 
thirteen.  It  is  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands. 

The  honest,  truth-loving,  and  justice-loving  people 
throughout  the  civilized  world  have  unanimously  set 
the  seal  of  their  condemnation  on  the  administration  of 
the  public  lands — the  ager  puhliciis — of  ancient  Rome, 
their  right  to  condemn  being  founded  on  the  self-com- 
placent assumption  that  no  such  misgovernment  could 
be  possible  in  this  age  of  enlightenment  and  Christian 
civilization.  But  a parallel — and  worse  than  parallel — 
can  be  found  in  the  United  States. 

Such  is  the  testimony  of  official  records ; and  to  these 
the  reader’s  attention  is  now  invited. 

Before  entering  upon  them,  however,  a thorough  un- 
derstanding of  the  lesson  they  teach  requires  a brief  pre- 
liminary history  of  the  sources  from  which  and  the  con- 
ditions on  which  the  United  States  acquired  the  right 
to  dispose  of  the  public  lands. 

After  the  Colonies  declared  themselves  to  be  free  and 
independent  States,  there  was  a want  of  perfect  har- 
mony in  their  councils  because  the  immense  bodies  of 
unsettled  lands  in  certain  States  ^particularly  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  and  Georgia)  would,  in  the  event  of  a 
successful  termination  of  the  war,  become  a mine  of 
wealth  to  the  States  in  which  they  lay,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  less  fortunate  States  by  whose  cooperation  these 
lands  would  be  wrenched  from  the  control  of  George  III. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


121 


The  first  formal  effort  to  remove  this  cause  of  dissat- 
isfaction was  made  in  the  Continental  Congress  while  it 
was  engaged  (October,  1777)  in  considering  a commit- 
tee report  on  the  proposed  Articles  of  Confederation.  A 
motion  was  made  to  insert  a clause  conferring  on  the 
“ United  States  in  Congress  assembled”  the  power  to 
“ascertain  and  fix  the  western  boundary  of  such  States 
as  claim  to  the  Mississippi  or  South  Sea,  and  lay  out  the 
land  beyond  the  boundary  so  ascertained  into  separate 
and  independent  States,  from  time  to  time”  ; but  Mary- 
land was  the  only  State  which  voted  for  it. 

On  the  submission  of  the  Articles  to  the  State  Legisla- 
tures with  the  request  for  instructions  to  their  respec- 
tive delegations  in  Congress  to  approve  and  sign  them, 
objection  was  made  to  them  in  several  States  because 
of  the  failure  to  provide  for  the  transfer  of  the  “waste 
lands”  to  the  United  States  as  common  property.  All 
of  them,  however,  except  Maryland,  acceded  to  the 
Confederation,  some  of  them  declaring  that  their  claim 
to  the  lands  as  common  property  was  not  thereby  aban- 
doned. 

In  1780  New  York,  in  order  to  “contribute  to  the 
tranquillity  and  safety  of  the  United  States  of  America,” 
and  to  promote  a “Federal  alliance  on  such  liberal  prin- 
ciples as  will  give  satisfaction  to  its  respective  mem- 
bers,” tendered  a cession  of  her  claims  to  the  western 
territory.^ 

The  persistent  refusal  of  Maryland  to  enter  into  the 
Confederation,  and  the  consequent  unsatisfactory  prog- 

* The  reader  is  requested  to  note  New  York’s  language.  There 
was  nothing  so  far  but  an  informal  union  of  the  States ; and  when 
she  ratified  the  Articles  she  declared  that  her  ratification  should  be 
binding  only  after  every  other  State  ratified.  And  yet  some  of  our 
most  distinguished  statesmen  have  insisted  that  after  July  4,  1776, 
New  York  was  simply  a fraction  of  the  “American  Nation.’’ 


122 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


ress  of  the  war.  led  to  the  adoption  by  the  {Jongre.ss. 
in  the  same  year,  of  a preamble  and  a resolution  on  the 
subject,  of  which  the  following  is  sufficient  for  the  pres- 
ent purpose:  “That  it  appears  advisable  to  press  upon 
those  States  which  can  remove  the  embarrassments 
respecting  the  western  country,  a liberal  surrender  of  a 
portion  of  their  territorial  claims,  since  they  can  not  be 
preserved  entire  without  endangering  the  stability  of 
the  general  Confederacy;  to  remind  them  how  indispen- 
sably necessary  it  is  to  establish  the  Federal  Union  on  a 
fixed  and  permanent  basis,  and  on  principles  acceptable 
to  all  its  respective  members.’’ 

Soon  aftei'wards,  in  the  same  year,  a resolution  was 
passed  containing  the  pledge  to  the  States  that  whatever 
lands  should  be  ceded  “shall  be  disposed  of  for  the  com- 
mon benefit  of  the  United  States.” 

New  York’s  deed  of  cession,  executed  March  1,  1781, 
and  accepted  in  October.  1782,  contained  the  condition 
that  the  lands  ceded  “shall  be  and  inure  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States  as  shall  become 
members  of  the  Federal  alliance  of  the  said  States,  and 
for  no  other  use  or  purpose  whatsoever.” 

January  2,  1781,  Virginia  was  moved  by  the  disheart- 
ening pace  at  which  the  war  was  dragging  its  slow 
length  along,  and  perhaps  by  the  smoke  of  Arnold’s 
fires  down  the  James,  to  offer  a cession  of  her  claims 
to  the  lands  north  of  the  Ohio;  but  some  of  her  condi- 
tions were  not  acceptable,  and  the  Congress  thought  it 
best  to  postpone  acceptance  till  the  conditions  were 
modified. 

But  Virginia’s  action  and  the  pledge  of  the  Congress 
induced  Maryland  to  ratify  the  Articles  and  complete, 
March  1,  1781,  the  Union  of  the  States.* 


'In  No.  XXXYIIT  of  the  Federalist  (Madison)  this  passage  occurs: 
“One  State,  we  may  remeinber,  persisted  for  several  years  in  refus- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


123 


On  October  20,  1783,  the  Virginia  Legislatnre  passed 
an  act.  in  which  the  objectionable  coaditions  were  with- 
drawn, and  her  deed  of  cession  was  executed  on  the  1st 
of  March,  1781.  It  contained  suhstantially  the  same 
proviso  as  New  York’s  deed,  namely,  that  the  lands 
should  be  “ considered  as  a common  fund  for  the  use 
and  benefit  of  such  of  the  United  States  as  have  become 
or  shall  hecome  members  of  the  Confederation  or  Fed- 
eral alliance  of  the  said  States,  Virginia  inclusive,  ac- 
cording to  their  usual  respective  proportions  io  the  gene- 
ral charge  and  expenditure,  and  shall  be  faithfully  and 
bona  fide  disposed  of  for  that  purpose,  and  for  no  other 
use  or  purpose  whatsoever.” — Hinsdale,  212. 

During  the  three  succeeding  years  Massachusetts  and 
South  Carolina  ceded  their  claims  to  vacant  lands,  and 
Connecticut  ceded  hers,  except  that  she  reserved  what 
has  since  been  known  as  the  Western  Reserve — all  of 
them  imposing  the  same  condition  as  that  copied  from 
Virginia’s  deed. 

In  1781  North  Carolina  offered  a cession  of  her  title 


ing  her  concurrence,  although  the  enemy  remained  the  whole  pe- 
riod at  our  gates.  * * * Nor  was  her  pliancy  in  the  end  effected 
by  a less  motive  than  the  fear  of  being  chargeable  with  protracting 
the  public  calamities,  and  endangering  the  event  of  the  contest.” 

And  he  might  have  added  that  Virginia’s  consent  to  cede  her 
lands  was  supposed  to  be  due  to  Arnold’s  invasion  of  the  State  in 
the  winter  of  1780-’81. 

And  the  question  may  well  be  asked,  w'hether  Maryland  would 
have  yielded  ai  any  time,  if  she  could  have  foreseen  the  hostile  oc- 
cupation of  Baltimore,  May  5,  1861,  by  Massachusetts  Iroops  under 
Gen.  Benjamin  P.  Butler,  the  disarming  of  the  citizens  by  that 
officer,  the  arrest  and  confinement  in  Fort  McHenry  of  George  P. 
Kane,  Marshal  of  the  city  police,  the  government  of  the  city  usurped 
by  Gen.  N.  P.  Banks,  another  Massachusetts  officer,  who  succeeded 
Butler,  and  the  arrest  and  confinement  of  every  prominent  man  in 
the  State — including  thirteen  members  of  the  Legislature  when  it 
assembled — who  was  unwilling  to  submit  tamely  to  “the  despot’s 
heel.” 


124 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


to  Tennessee,  but  it  was  not  accepted.  In  December, 
1789,  however,  another  offer  was  made,  and  a deed  was 
executed  February  25,  1790. 

And  in  1802  Georgia  ceded  her  title  to  the  territory 
which  afterwards  became  Alabama  and  Missisippi,  re- 
ceiving in  the  adjustment  of  her  “Yazoo  claims” 
$6,200,000 — she  and  North  Carolina  imposing  the  con- 
ditions imposed  by  Virginia.’ — State  Papers,  Ist  sess., 
10th  Cong. 

On  the  express  condition,  therefoi-e,  that  the  “waste 
lands”  should  be  disposed  of  for  the  common  benefit  of 
all  the  States  were  they  placed  under  the  control  of  the 
Congress,  that  body  being  empowered  by  the  States  “to 
dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  rules  ard  regulations 
respecting”  them. 

Thus  far  we  have  accounted  for  all  the  “waste  lands” 
belonging  to  the  States  up  to  1803,  except  Kentucky 
and  Vermont.  The  offer  of  bounty  lands  in  the  “Dis- 
trict of  Kentucky”  by  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  to 
those  of  her  citizens  who  had  been  employed  in  her  mih- 
tary  service,  and  the  purchase  of  Transylvania  by  Hen- 
derson’s Company,  led  to  numerous  settlements;  and 
the  desire  of  the  growing  population  for  admission  into 
the  Union  as  an  independant  State  induced  Virginia  to 
give  her  consent  December  18,  1789;  and  the  new  State 
was  admitted  February  4,  1791.  Vermont,  a bone  of 
contention  between  New^  York  and  New  Hampshire,  as- 
serted its  independence  and  organized  a government  in 
January,  1777,  maintained  its  independence  all  through 
the  war  and  the  period  of  the  Confederation;  and  New 
York,  relinquishing  her  claims  to  the  unappropriated 

' Those  who  are  fond  of  ancient  history  will  be  interested  m the 
following  pi'oviso  in  North  Carolina’s  deed  (and  substantially  the 
same  in  Georgia’s) : “No  regulations  made  or  to  he  made  shall  tend 
to  emancipate  slaves’’  in  the  ceded  territory! 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


125 


lands  in  consideration  of  $30,000,  she  was  admitted  into 
the  Union  March  d,  1791. 

In  1803  was  inaugurated  the  policy  of  acquiring  for- 
eign territory  (without  Constitutional  authority). ‘ 

In  that  year  the  people  of  the  United  States  paid  or 
bound  themselves  to  pay  $27,267,621  for  the  Louisiana 
Territory,  and  in  addition  thereto  certain  “French  spo- 
liation claims” ; and  subsequent  purchases  were  as  in 
the  following  table: 


In  1819  Florida  for  .....  56.489,768 

1849  New  Mexico  and  Arizona  for  - - 15,000,000 

1850  Texas  lands  for  - ...  - 5.000,000 

1853  Gadsden  treaty  lands  for  - • - 10,000,000 

1855  more  Texas  land  for  ....  7,500,000 

1867  Alaska  for 2 .....  7,200.000 


The  total  cost  of  these  lands  up  to  1883 — the  year  in 
which  the  Public  Land  Commission  made  a full  report 
of  the  purchases,  sales,  grants,  etc.- — -was  $94,353,383, 
including  interest  on  the  $5,000,000  of  Texas  stock. 

In  addition  to  this  there  had  been  p.aid  for  “quieting 
and  purchasing  the  occupancy  title  of  Indians”  up  to 
June  30,  1880,  $187,328,904.  To  this,  again,  must  be 
added  the  exjienses  of  the  survey  and  disposal  of  lands 
from  March  4,1784,  to  June  30,  1880,  amounting  to 
$46,563,302.  The  grand  total  of  the  cost  of  the  public 
lauds,  therefore,  not  including  rents  of  buildings  for  the 
use  of  the  G-eneral  Land  Office  in  Washington  City,  was 
$328,249,489. 

These  lands,  paid  for  by  all  the  States  in  proportion 


' Mr.  Jefferson  said  in  a letter  to  Mr.  Breckinridge  that  “the  Con- 
stitution has  made  no  provision  for  our  holding  foreign  territory, 
and  still  less  for  incorporating  foreign  nations  into  our  Union.” — 
Stats.  Man..  I,  239. 

^See  Report  of  Public  Land  Commission,  1883,  pages  17,  18  and  19. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


126 


to  their  several  populations/  belonged  to  all  the  States 
as  common  property,  and  the  Congress  was  morally 
bound  to  dispose  of  them,  as  well  as  the  lands  ceded  by 
the  States,  for  the  common  benefit. 

Such  is  the  history  of  the  donated  and  purchased  ter- 
ritory, and  of  the  expressed  or  implied  conditions  im- 
posed on  the  United  States — conditions  recognized  as 
obligatory  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lauds  in  1810, 
when  they  re^iorted  against  allowing  donations  of  land 
for  services  in  the  French-Indian  war,  declaring  in  their 
report:  “Nor  would  the  purposes  for  which  the  several 
States  have  ceded  land  * warrant  the  appropriation  of 
those  lands  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  claims  in  ques- 
tion.’’ ^ 

But  the  records  of  Congressional  legislation  warrant 
the  declaration  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  chapter  to 
justify,  that,  in  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands,  the  rights 
of  those  who  ceded  or  paid  for  them  have  not  been  faith- 
fully respected — that  a policy  was  adopted  nearly  eighty 
years  ago,  and  has  been  followed  ever  since,  of  grant- 
ing lands  not  only  for  purposes  forbidden  by  the  ex- 
pressed or  implied  terms  on  which  the  control  of  them 
was  acquired,  hut  for  purposes  not  included  among  the 
powers  delegated  by  the  States  to  any  department  or 
officer  of  the  Federal  Government. 

Authority  on  the  latter  point  would  be  superfluous  if 
selfishness,  ambition,  and  party  spirit  had  not  from  the 
beginning  sought  to  obscure  the  truth,  and  prepare  the 
people  for  quiet  submission  to  unauthorized  legislation. 

‘It  is  beyond  question  that  this  statement  could  be  very  much 
modified  if  we  had  the  necessaiw  data.  During  all  the  years  of 
these  purchases  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  consumed,  per 
capita,  a much  larger  share  of  imported  goods  than  the  people  of 
the  Northern  States;  and  paid  a correspondingly  larger  sum  into 
the  Federal  Treasuiy. 

-State  Papers,  Volume  II,  Second  Session.  Eleventh  Congress. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


127 


In  Mr.  Jefferson’s  sixth  annual  message  occurs  the 
following  passage,  which  strikes  modern  ears  as  a re- 
markahle  deliverance  from  the  Executive  mansion: 

“When  both  these  branches  of  revenue  shall  in  this 
way  be  relinquished,  there  will  still  ere  long  be  an  ac- 
cinnulation  of  moneys  in  the  treasury  beyond  the  in- 
stallments of  the  public  debt  which  we  are  permitted 
by  contract  to  pay.  * The  question,  therefore, 

now  comes  forwai'd;  to  what  objects  shall  these  sur- 
pluses be  appropriated,  and  the  whole  suiqilus  of  import, 
after  the  entire  discharge  of  the  public  debt  ? ” ' He  then 
proceeds  to  advise  that  they  be  devoted  “to  the  great 
purposes  of  the  public  education,  roads,  rivers,  canals, 
and  such  other  objects  of  public  improvement  as  it  may 
be  thought  proper  to  add  to  the  Constitutional  enumera- 
tion of  Federal  powers.  * * * The  subject  is  now 

proposed  for  the  consideration  of  Congress,  because,  if 
approved  by  the  time  the  Staffe  Legislatures  shall  have 
deliberated  on  this  extension  of  the  Federal  trusts,  and 
the  laws  shall  be  passed  and  other  arrangements  made 
for  their  execution,  the  necessary  funds  will  be  on  hand 
and  without  employment.  I suppose  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  by  consent  of  the  States,  necessary, 
because  the  objects  now  recommended  are  not  among 
those  enumerated  in  the  Constitution,  and  to  which  it 
permits  the  public  moneys  to  be  applied.” 

But  the  Constitution  was  not  amended.  And  although 
Mr.  Jefferson  approved  some  acts  of  the  Congress  un- 
warranted by  the  Constitution  as  expounded  by  him- 
self, no  unbiased  student  of  that  compact  can  entertain 
a doubt  of  the  soundness  of  his  exposition. 

This  ought  to  be  sufficient;  but  the  importance  of  the 
subject  will  justify  the  summoning  of  one  more  witness. 

' It  is  surprising  that  he  did  not  reconiuiend  a reduction  of  tariff 
rates,  and  the  avoidance  of  a surplus. 


128 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


That  witness  was  James  Madison,  an  active  and  influ- 
ential member  of  the  Convention  which  framed  the  Con- 
stitution, the  author  of  twenty-nine  of  the  papers  in  the 
Federalist,  and  a controlling  spirit  (opposed  by  Patrick 
Henry,  George  Mason,  James  Monroe,  Benjamin  Har- 
rison, and  other  able  statesmen;  in  securing  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  by  Virginia.  His  veto  message 
of  March  3,  1817,  contains  the  following: 

“Having  considered  the  bill  * * * entitled  ‘ An 
act  to  set  apart  and  pledge  certain  funds  for  internal 
improvements,  ’ and  which  sets  apart  and  pledges  funds 
‘ for  constructing  roads  and  canals,  and  improving  the 
navigation  of  watercourses,  in  order  to  facilitate,  pro- 
mote, and  give  security  to  internal  commerce  among  the 
several  States,  and  to  render  more  easy  and  less  expen- 
sive the  means  and  provisions  for  the  common  defence,' 
I am  constrained  by  the  insuperable  difficulty  I feel  in 
reconciling  the  bill  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  to  return  it  with  that  objection.  * 

“The  legislative  powers  vested  in  Congress  are  speci- 
fied and  enumerated  in  the  eighth  section  of  the  first 
article ; * * * and  it  does  not  appear  that  the  power 
proposed  to  be  exercised  by  this  bill  is  among  the  enu- 
merated powers,  or  that  it  falls  by  any  just  interpreta- 
tion within  the  power  to  make  laws  necessary  and  proper 
for  carrying  into  execution  those  or  other  powers  vested 
by  the  Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States. 

“ ‘The  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  several 
States,  ’ can  not  include  a power  to  construct  roads  and 
canals,  and  to  improve  the  navigation  of  watercourses 
* * * without  a latitude  of  construction,  departing 

from  the  ordinary  import  of  the  terms,  strengthened  by 
the  known  inconveniences  which  doubtless  led  to  the 
grant  of  this  remedial  power  to  Congress.  * * * To 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


129 


refer  the  power  in  question  to  the  clause  ‘to  provide  for 
the  common  defence  and  general  welfare,  ’ would  be  con- 
trary to  the  established  and  consistent  rules  of  interpre- 
tation, as  rendering  the  special  and  careful  enumeration 
of  powers  which  follows  the  clause  nugatory  and  im- 
proper. Such  a view  of  the  Constitution  would  have 
the  effect  of  giving  to  Congress  a general  power  of  leg- 
islation, instead  of  the  defined  and  limited  one  hitherto 
understood  to  belong  to  them;  the  terms  ‘common  de- 
fence and  general  welfare’  embracing  every  object  and 
act  within  the  purview  of  a legislative  trust.  * * 

“I  have  no  option  but  to  withhold  my  signature  from 
it,  cherishing  the  hope  that  its  beneficial  object  may 
be  attained  by  a resort  for  the  necessary  powers”  to  the 
States.' 

But  no  anieadment  ivas  proposed  to  the  States;  and 
from  that  day  to  the  present  the  powers  of  Congress 
over  education,  roads,  canals,  and  navigable  or  unnavi- 
gable  watercourses  have  never  been  enlarged. 

It  is  not  among  the  objects  of  this  presentation  of 
truth  to  impugn  the  motives  of  all  those  who  inaugurated 
or  pursued  the  Governmental  policy  whose  results,  as 
will  be  shown,  have  enriched  some  States  at  the  ex- 
pense of  others,  and  have  “ multiplied,  des'^eloped,  and 
strengthened  the  North  ” at  the  expense  of  the  South. 
Their  motives  may,  with  exceptions,  have  been  unim- 
peachable; and  charity  should  prefer  to  attribute  their 
disregard  of  the  moral  obligation  imposed  on  them  by 
their  official  stations  to  ignorance  of  their  duties,  to 

' The  correctness  of  this  definition  of  the  powers  of  Congress  can 
not  be  impeached  by  producing  evidence  that  Mr.  Madison  was  not 
always  governed  by  it.  It  is  the  deliberate  interpretation  of  a writ- 
ten instrument  by  one  who  assisted  in  writing  it,  of  whom  a late 
sketch  in  a Cyclopoedia  says : ‘Tn  the  knowledge  of  history  and  Con- 
stitutional law  he  was  without  a peer  among  the^statesmen  of  his 
time.” 


9 


130 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


ambition,^  to  party  spirit,^  or  to  the  supposed  behests  of 
a code  of  morals  superior  to  any  writtei^  law. 

The  acts  of  the  Federal  Go^^ernment  disposing  of  the 
public  lands,  organizing  governments  in  them,  etc.,  fall 
easily  and  naturally  into  three  groups,  the  first  ending 
with  April  30,  1789,  and  the  second  ending  vdth  March 
d.  1861. 

Since  there  was  no  “waste  land”  belonging  to  the 
United  States  at  the  time  of  the  framing  and  adoption 
of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  no  power  was  confer- 
red on  the  “United  States  in  Congress  assembled”  to  dis- 
pose of  the  lauds  ceded  by  Virginia  and  other  States;  but 
as  the  lands  were  a “common  stock” — property — there 
was  no  question  of  the  right  of  the  Congress  to  adopt 
measures  for  disposing  of  them  according  to  the  condi- 
tions of  the  cessions.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  the  United 
States  came  into  possession  of  the  Northwest  Territory 
acts  were  passed  for  the  sale  of  tlie  lauds. 

But  the  Congress  did  not  stop  at  the  boundary  pre- 
scribed by  the  donors.  It  overstepped  them:  and  not 
only  this,  the  celebrated  ordinance  for  the  government 
of  the  territory  was  adopted  by  eight  States  in  the  face 
of  the  promise  that  the  assent  of  at  least  nine  States 
should  be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  any  act  disposing 
of  the  lands.  On  the  question  of  the  Constitutionality 
of  the  act  of  the  Congress,  even  if  nine  States  had  as- 
sented, let  us  hear  from  Mr.  Madison.  In  No.  XXXVIII 
of  the  Federalist,  he  said: 

“Congress  has  assumed  the  administration  of  the 
stock.  They  have  begun  to  render  it  productive.  Con- 
gress have  undertaken  to  do  more ; they  have  proceeded 
to  form  new  States,  to  erect  temporary  governments, 

’ See  Note  I. 

^ See  Note  K. 


THE  SOUTH  AC4AINST  THE  NORTH. 


131 


to  appoint  officers  for  them,  and  to  prescribe  the  con- 
ditions on  which  such  States  shall  be  admitted  into  the  ' 
Confederacy.  All  this  has  been  done,  and  done  with- 
out the  least  color  of  Constitutional  authority.”'  One 
of  the  “conditions  ” in  the  Ordinance  of  1787  was  the 
anti-slavery  article.^  Such  was  the  legislation  dur- 

ing the  first  period ; and  it  was  an  appropriate  prelude 
to  what  came  afterwards. 

In  establishing  the  precedents  in  the  early  years  of 
the  second  period,  however,  there  was  faithful  compli- 
ance with  the  Constitution  and  with  the  conditions  im- 
posed in  the  deeds  of  cession;  and,  what,  with  our  mod- 
ern ideas,  might  appear  to  have  been  nothing  but  pater- 
nalistic gratuities,  were  grants  of  land  as  compensation 
to  organized  communities  for  the  relinquishment  of  cer- 
tain rights  which  would  belong  to  them  when  they  be- 
came sovereign  States.  In  other  words,  compacts  were 
entered  into  between  the  United  States  and  each  one  of 
such  inchoate  States,  intended  to  restrain  the  latter 
from  interfering  with  the  “primary  disposal”  of  lands 
within  its  borders  or  levying  taxes  so  as  to  discriminate 
against  non-resident  purchasers. 

When  in  1802  the  Congress  was  engaged  in  “ laying- 
out”  Ohio,  and  was  proposing  to  add  new  conditions  to 
those  then  in  force,  Mr.  Giles,  of  Virginia,  Chairman 
of  the  committee  having  the  business  in  charge,  con- 
sulted Mr.  Gallatin,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as 
to  the  measure  the  committee  ought  to  adopt.  Mr.  Gal- 
latin wrote  him  a letter  (Stale  Papers,  Miscellaneous, 
Vol.  I),  the  substance  of  which  was  as  follows: 


' It  was  claimed  by  the  “free  soilers”  during  the  discussion  of  the 
Missouri  question  and  often  afterwards, that  this  unauthorized  Or-di 
nance  was  a precedent  justifying  the  pretension  that  the  Congress 
possessed  the  power  to  restrict  slavery  to  the  original  slave  States. 
See  Note  L. 


132 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


The  Northwest  Territory  having  taxed  lands  of  non- 
residents higher  than  those  of  residents,  thereby  dis- 
couraging intended  purchasers  and  diminishing  sales,  it 
was  advisable  to  secure  a relinquishment  of  the  right  to 
discriminate,  since  “all  legislative  povxers  which  of  right 
pertain  to  an  independent  State  must  be  exercised  at 
the  discretion  of  the  Legislature  of  the  new  State,  un- 
less limited  either  by  the  Articles  (old  compact)  or  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Indeed,’'  he  con- 
tinued, “ the  United  States  have  no  greater  right  to 
annex  new  limitations  than  the  individual  State  may 
have  to  infringe  those  of  the  original  compact." 

“By  common  consent"  also,  security  “should  he  ob- 
tained’' against  sale  of  land  by  the  State  for  taxes  be- 
fore the  purchase-money  had  been  paid  in  and  while  the 
United  States  had  a lien  on  the  land.  He  was  of  the 
opinion  that  “an  equivalent”  should  he  offered  for  the 
relinquishment  of  such  taxes,  which  the  new  State 
could  “accept  or  reject.'’  He  proposed  an  exemption 
from  State  taxes  for  ten  years  after  full  payment  for 
the  laud,  and  that  on  their  part  the  United  States  should 
grant  as  an  equiv^alent : 

1.  “Section  numbered  sixteen"  in  each  township  for 
public  si'hools; 

2.  The  Scioto  salt  springs  with  the  six-miles  reserva- 
tion thereto  attached — to  he  leased  or  sold  by  the  State 
for  only  short  periods,  so  as  to  prevent  a salt  monopoly: 
and 

3.  One-tenth  of  the  net  proceeds  of  all  land  sales  to 
be  applied  to  building  turnpikes  and  roads  from  the  Ohio 
Eiver  to  the  rivers  running  into  the  Atlantic. 

These  grants,  he  thought,  would  facilitate  sales,  and 
the  turnpikes  and  roads  would  strengthen  the  bonds  of 
the  Union.' 


' These  turnpikes  and  roads  were  not  to  be  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


133 


The  recorameudations  of  Mr.  Gallatin  were  adopted 
by  the  committee;  and  the  act  passed  by  the  CoQgress,  in 
compliance  with  conditions  in  the  deeds  of  cession,  au- 
thorizing the  people  to  frame  a State  government,  was 
the  hill  reported  by  the  committee,  with  the  addition  of 
“the  salt  springs  near  the  Muskingum  River.”  with  the 
adjoining  reservation,  etc.,  and  the  substitution  of  one- 
twentieth  (five  per  cent)  for  one-tenth  of  the  net  pro- 
ceeds. etc.  This  compact  was  accepted  by  the  Ohio  Con- 
vention; and  it  was  adopted  as  the  precedent  in  subse- 
quent enabling  acts  until  ihe  reasons  for  the  grants  were 
forgotten,  and  personal  ambition,  party  spirit,  and 
sectional  advantage  began  to  be  controlling  factors  in 
land  legislation. 

This  point  was  reached  in  ISKi,  when  Indiana  was 
admitted.  To  her,  besides  grants  similar  to  those  made 
to  Ohio,  presents  were  made  of  two  entire  townships 
(1:6,080  acres)  for  a seminary,  and  four  sections  of  land 
(2,560  acres)  for  fixing  the  seat  of  government. 

This  was  the  precedent  and  the  excuse  for  the  policy 
pursued  ever  since  of  donating  to  all  new  States  organ- 
ized in  the  “waste  lands”  vast  areas  for  high  schools, 
scientific  schools,  universities,  art  schools,  etc.,  etc., 
while  the  people  in  the  old  States  have  as  a general  rule 
supported  educational  institutions  by  taxing  themselves. 

This  last  statement  needs  two  qualifications  which 
may  as  well  be  inserted  here : 

1 . The  first  is  that  certain  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  pub- 
lic lands  were,  by  certain  acts  of  Congress,  deposited 
with  the  twenty-six  States  (1841),  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, and  the  Territories  of  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and  Florida, 
according  to  their  representative  population;  and  that 
this  money  was  devoted  by  the  Legislatures  of  some  of 
the  States  to  the  support  of  free  public  schools.  This 
was  done  in  North  Carolina;  but  the  securities  in  which 


134- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


the  Qioiiey  was  invested  were  destroyed  by  the  war  be- 
tween the  sections. 

3.  The  second  is  that  an  act  was  passed  July  2,  1862, 
donatiog  land  scrip  to  all  the  States  in  aid  of  Agricul- 
tural and  Mechanical  Colleges  (a  condition  based  on  a 
still  further  usurpation),  of  which  North  Carolina’s  allot- 
ment was  270,000  acres.  This  scrip  could  not  be  located 
by  the  State ; it  had  to  be  sold ; and  as  nearly  all  of  the 
money  of  the  country  was  in  the  Northern  States,  the 
laud  speculators  up  there  paid  fifty  cents  per  acre  for 
the  scrip — the  highest  offer  the  State  could  get.  But 
the  North  forced  on  us  the  infamous  “reconstruction 
measures,”  and  this  fund  went  down  among  the  wrecks 
of  that  period. 

The  Indiana  act  was  followed  closely  in  all  eualiliug 
acts  till  184:8,  when  it  was  enacted  that  two  sections  (16th 
and  36th)  in  each  township  should  be  donated  for  schools 
to  Oregon  and  all  States  subsequently  organized  or  ad- 
mitted ; but  there  were  many  acts  granting  lands  for 
special  purposes  not  embraced  in  the  legitimate  sphere 
of  Congressional  action.  To  these  the  reader’s  atten- 
tion is  now  directed. 

Among  them  (beginning  with  that  of  May  26,  1824:, ) 
w^as  the  act  of  September  4:,  184-1,  which  granted  to  the 
new  States  and  the  organized  Territories  500,000  acres 
each  for  internal  improvements  (canals,  roads,  railroads, 
etc.),  this  amount  to  include  any  previous  grants  for 
the  same  purposes ; and  under  the  operation  of  this  and 
the  previous  acts  all  these  new  States  and  Territories 
(IS  of  them)  received  500,000  acres  each,  except  five  of 
them,  their  amounts  being  as  in  the  following  table ; 

Ohio,  1,243,001  acres 

Indiana,  - - - - 1,609,861 

Illinois,  533,000 

Iowa,  1,333,079 

AVisconsin.  - - - ■ 1,183,728 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


135 


In  1850,  September  27,  an  act  was  passed  donating 
320  acres  to  each  unmarried  person,  and  640  acres  to 
each  head  of  a family,  who  would  settle  in  Oregon  and 
Washington,  on  their  complying  with  certain  conditions. 
Under  it  8,000  claims  were  registered. 

In  1854,  July  22,  an  act  was  passed  donating  lands  on 
about  the  same  conditions  as  those  of  the  preceding  act 
to  actual  settlers  in  New  Mexico,  Kansas,  Nebraska,  and 
Utah,  but  the  amount  to  each  was  to  be  160  acres. 

By  numerous  acts  up  to  August  3,  1854,  3,630,000 
acres  were  granted  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  AWsconsin, 
and  Michigan,  for  constructing  canals. 

By  four  acts,  beginning  March  2,  1849,  and  ending 
March  12,  1860,  there  were  granted  80,000,000  acres  of 
swamp  lands  to  the  public-land  States. 

By  numerous  acts,  beginning  September  20,  1850,  and 
ending  February  18,  1859,  there  were  granted  to  public- 
land  States  and  Territories  23,495,  734  acres  for  the  con- 
struction of  railroads,  of  which  the  largest  share  went 
to  Illinois  for  the  building  of  the  Illinois  Central  Eail- 
road. ^ 

The  value  of  this  “ bounty  of  tbe  Nation”  can  be  ap- 
preciated from  the  following  statement  on  page  392  of 
the  Septembei’  number,  1890,  of  the  Political  Science 
Quarterly:  “The  State  debt  of  Illinois  has  been  pa|id  off 
and  the  State  government  for  years  has  been  supported 
by  a tax  on  the  gross  receipts  of  the  Illinois  Central 
Railroad.”  Indeed,  as  far  back  as  1858,  it  was  asserted 
by  respectable  authority  that  the  State  government  of 
Illinois  was  supported  by  a tax  (7  per  cent  ) on  the  gross 
receipts  of  this  railroad. 

In  pursuance  of  this  policy  of  paternalism  the  organ- 

’ The  total  amount  certified  or  patented  to  the  State  up  to  June 
30,  1896,  according  to  the  Land  Office  Report  for  that  year,  was 
3,595.053  acres. 


136 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


ized  Territories  have  been  governed  from  Washington 
City,  and  the  salaries  of  all  the  Territorial  officers — leg- 
islative, executive,  and  judicial — have  been  paid  out  of 
the  pockets  of  all  the  people  of  all  the  States. ' The  total 
amount  of  the  people’s  money  thus  given  away  may 
be  approximately  estimated  from  the  appropriations  for 
Arizona  and  New  Mexico  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  .June 
30,  1895.  For  New  Mexico  the  amount  was  847,400, 
and  for  Arizona  it  was  841,650.  And  this,  although 
the  population  of  New  Mexico  is  larger  than  that  of  the 
State  of  Montana,  and  Arizona's  is  larger  than  that  of 
the  State  of  Utah.  ^ If  we  assume  840,000  as  the  cost 
of  government  in  each  of  the  Territories  which  have  be- 
come States  of  the  Union,  the  total  amount  paid  out  of 
the  people’s  pocket  for  this  purpose  up  to  1880  was 
about  816,000,000,  which  added  to  the  expenditure  al- 
ready accounted  for  swells  the  cost  of  the  public  lands 
and  their  maDagement  to  8344,249,489,  not  including 
the  expenses  of  government  in  Indian  Territory  and 
Oklahoma.  ^ 

^ See  Note  M. 

^ Persons  who  were  born  in  the  Territories,  and  foreigners  who 
settled  in  them,  enjoying  the  benefits  of  largessesof  land  and  money, 
came  to  regard  the  Federal  Government  as  the  fountain  of  many  of 
their  blessings.  Whatever  its  usurpations  might  be,  therefore,  they 
stood  manfully  by  it,  and  supported  it  in  its  march  toward  impe- 
rialism. 

In  later  years  its  powers  have  become  in  their  estimation  almost 
boundless.  For  example,  in  a pastoi’al  letter  to  Catholics,  May  12, 
1898,  Archbishop  Gross,  of  Portland,  Oregon,  said : 

“It  has  been  objected  that  if  Spain  has  its  demoralizing  bull  fights. 
America  has  its  prize  fights.  Yes;  but  it  did  not  require  a decree  of 
the  Pope  to  prohibit  them.  Our  noble  Government  has  prohibited 
the  prize  fights,  and  has  done  all  in  its  power,  and  successfully,  too, 
to  stop  this  barbarous  sport.’'  The  author  of  that  paragraph  can, 
perhaps,  see  no  difference  between  our  “National”  Government  and 
the  Government  of  Spain  or  Russia. 

® Estimated  from  data  in  General  Land  Office  Report,  1896,  pages 
197-98. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THH  NORTH.  137 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  unauthorized  grants 
of  public  lauds  up  to  1861  ; and  Vve  have  found  the  rec- 
ord sufficiently  discreditable  to  the  statesmanship  of  the 
ante-bellum  period.  But  since  1861  there  has  been 
something  of  a revelry  in  extravagance  and  an  ostenta- 
tious display  of  contempt  for  the  rights  of  the  people  and 
for  the  obligations  which  are  supposed  to  bind  public 
servants.  Take,  for  example,  the  act  of  April  19,  186-t, 
authorizing  the  people  of  Nebraska  to  form  a State  Con  - 
stitution. It  grants  (1)  two  sections  of  land  in  each 
township  for  public  schools,  and,  when  such  sections 
have  been  sold  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  other  land 
equivalent  thereto;  ;2)  twenty  entire  sections  for  the 
erection  of  public  buildings  at  the  Capital;  (3)  fifty 
entire  sections  for  a penitentiary;  (-1)  seventy-two  en- 
tire sections  for  a State  University;  (5)  all  salt  springs 
within  the  State,  not  exceeding  twelve  in  number,  with 
six  sections  of  land  adjoining,  or  as  contiguous  as  may 
be  to  each;  and  (6)  five  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  all  public  lands  in  the  State  which  had 
been  or  should  be  sold.  This  was  a donation,  according 
to  statistics  in  the  General  Land  Office  Report  for  1896, 
of  2,839,001  acres  of  land  and  about  ^3,100,000  in  money, 
or  98  acres  and  $117  apiece  for  every  human  being  in 
the  Territory  in  1860. 

By  several  acts,  beginning  with  March  3,  1865,  700.000 
acres  were  donated  for  canal  purposes  in  Ohio,  Illinois, 
Indiana,  Michigan,  aud  Wisconsin.' 

By  several  acts,  beginning  with  July  5,  1862,  there 
have  been  granted  to  public-land  States  11,823,157  acres 
for  the  construction  of  railroads.  ^ 

By  several  acts,  beginning  with  March  3,  1863,  there 


* Ibid. 
'■*  Ibid. 


138 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


have  been  granted  3,910,1-14-  acres  for  wagon  roads  in 
Wisconsin,  Michigan  and  Oregon.  ^ 

Between  March  i,  1861,  and  June  30,  1871.  according 
to  the  General  Land  Office  Report  for  1871,  there  were 
donated  for  railroads  and  wagon  roads  a total  of  197,- 
711,406  acres. 

By  the  act  of  August  18,  1894,  provision  is  made  for 
granting  1,000,000  acres  of  arid  laud  to  each  of  the  arid- 
land  States  on  condition  tuat  each  grantee  shall  “cause 
to  be  irrigated,  reclaimed,”  etc.,  so  much  land  within 
its  borders;  and  sites  for  reservoir.s,  right  of  way  for 
canals  and  ditches  (all  to  be  surveyed,  selected,  and  su- 
pervised by  Federal  officers  at  the  expense  of  the  people) 
are  to  be  granted.  And  possibly,  after  all  the  public 
lands  have  been  disposed  of,  irrigation  will  remain  a per- 
petual object  of  “National  solicitude,”  as  is  foreshad- 
owed in  the  act  of  August  30.  1890.  which  directs  that 
“in  all  patents  for  lands  hereafter  taken  up,  etc.,  it  shall 
be  expressed  that  there  is  reserved  from  the  lauds  in 
said  patent  described,  a right  of  w^ay  thereon  for  ditches 
or  canals  constructed  by  the  authority  of  the  United 
States.”  And  this  possibility  becomes  a probability 
when  w’e  grasp  the  full  significance  of  the  following 
recommendation  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office  in  his  report  for  1896;  “M  again  call  your 
attention  to  the  necessit}^  which  must  arise  in  the  near 
future,  for  the  creation  of  a National  Commission  wdiose 
functions  shall  be  to  regulate  the  distribution  of  those 
w^aters  wdiich  have  their  source  in  a superjacent  State, 
and  which  have  heretofore  been  used  in  common  by  the 
people  of  that  and  the  subjacent  States."  etc.  ^ 

'Ibid. 

" At  a meeting  of  a body  of  gentlemen  in  Washington  on  Decem- 
ber 15,  1897,  calling  themselves  “The  National  Board  of  Trade," 
“the  question  of  artificial  irrigation  was  next  discussed,  the  basis 


THE  SOUTH  j^.GAINST  THE  NORTH. 


139 


Among  the  grants,  already  partly  included  in  amounts 
mentioned,  was  a donation  of  140,6-15,166  acres  to  the 
Pacific  Eailroads,  besides  a loan  of  161,000,000  secured 
by  second  mortgages  on  the  roads. 

Several  grants  of  smaller  amounts,  but  large  aggre- 
gates, have  been  made  for  town  sites  in  new  States,  the 
number  of  such  towns  as  far  back  as  1869  being  13,000, 
with  populations  ranging  from  500  to  5,000;’  for  univer- 
sities and  high  schools,  normal  schools,  charitable  insti- 
tutions, county  and  State  public  buildings,  reform 
schools,  schools  of  mines,  scientific  schools,  i^enitentia- 
ries,  rivers,  roads,  canals,  etc.,  etc. 

But  even  all  these  grants,  together  with  others  equally 
violative  of  the  Constitution  and  the  pledge  made  to 
the  States  and  to  the  original  grantors  or  purchasers, 
were  pardonable  in  comparison  with  those  provided  for 
in  the  act  of  May  20,  1862.  That  donated  a homestead 
free  of  cost,  except  a fee  amounting  to  about  eleven 
cents  per  acre,  to  any  citizen  who  is  the  head  of  a family, 
or  who  has  arrived  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and 
to  any  foreigner  who  has  filed  a declaration  to  become 
a citizen,  provided  that  he  proves  his  “loyalty.  ” ^ That 

being  a resolntion  offered  by  the  Pittsburg  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
which  recommended  that  Congress  enact  laws  to  place  the  super- 
vision of  all  irrigation  enterprises  in  the  hands  of  the  U nited  States 
authorities  where  such  work  is  undertaken  upon  waterways  affect- 
ing interstate  navigation.  * . * * The  resolution  vyas  adoi)ted 

and  a committee  appointed  to  have  charge  of  the  matter  and  report 
at  the  next  meeting.” — Press  Dispatch. 

' See  Greneral  Land  Office  Report,  1869. 

“This  proviso  has  never  been  strickert^  out  of  the  law.  The  only 
amendment  bearing  on  the  qualifications  of  the  beneficiary,  so  far 
as  the  Southern  people  are  concerned,  is  in  the  Act  of  1866,  to  this 
effect : 

” No  distinction  or  discrimination  shall  be  made  in  the  construc- 
tion or  execution  of  this  act  on  account  of  race  or  color.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


UO 

is  to  say,  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  who,  or 
whose  ancestors,  ceded  or  partly  paid  for  these  lands, 
were  excluded  from  this  “ bounty  of  the  Nation,”  even 
the  dregs  of  foreign  countries*  being  pi’eferred  to  them.- 

The  total  number  of  homesteaders  up  to  June  30. 
1896,  (according  to  the  General  Land  Office  Jdeport  for 
that  year,  p.  91)  was  508,936,  and  the  total  number 
of  acres  patented  to  them  was  67,618,451,  the  figures  for 
that  year  being  36,548  original  entries  and  4,830,915 
acres.  This  was  an  average  annual  gratuity  of  nearly 
1,800,000  acres  for  the  whole  period  after  the  passage 
of  the  act,  and  of  nearly  three  times  as  much  during 
the  last  year 

The  drain  of  wealth  from  the  Southern  States — par- 
ticularly those  of  the  original  thirteen — by  the  unwar- 
ranted diversion  of  the  public  lands  from  being  a source 
of  revenue  to  the  common  treasury  of  the  States,  to 
the  enrichment  of  States,  coi’iiorations,  and  individuals 
in  other  sections,  has  resulted  in  a marked  comparative 
deficiency  of  the  appliances  a ad  conveniencies  of  civili- 
zation in  the  original  Southern  States  and  to  a consider- 
able extent  in  all  of  them. 

The  untold  wealth  relinquished  by  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  and  Georgia,  for  the  common  expenses  of  the 

' At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  this  act  there  was  no  restriction  on 
immigration.  Indeed,  it  was  reserved  to  a more  enlightened  age  to 
discover  that  immigration  is  “commerce,’'  and,  therefore,  subject  to 
Congressional  control! 

A bill  was  passed  in  the  Federal  Senate  on  May  4.  1897,  to  donate 
homesteads  to  settlers  upon  “the  i^ublic  lands  acquired  prior  to  the 
passage  of  this  act  by  treaty  or  agreement  from  the  various  Indian 
tribes  or  upon  military  resei'\  ations  which  have  been  opened  to  set- 
tlers,” etc.  And  among  the  yeas  are  the  names  cf  ten  Senators 
from  Southern  States,  viz:  Two  from  Alabama,  one  from  Florida, 
one  from  Georgia,  one  from  Louisiana,  one  from  Maryland,  two 
from  North  Carolina,  one  from  South  Carolina,  and  one  from  Vir 
ginia.— Daily  Record.  Fifty  fifth  Congress,  First  Session,  page  1,177. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


141 


States,  has  been  given  away  to  others,  every  promise 
made  to  the  States  has  been  repudiated,  including  the 
one  which  induced  Maryland  to  unite  her  fortunes  with 
those  of  the  other  States  in  1781. ' 

But  the  whole  story  has  not  been  told.  Beginning 
with  the  first  sale  in  1787,  and  ending  with  the  year 
1880,^  we  find  that  the  net  receipts  into  the  treasury 
from  the  sales  of  public  lands  (including  those  which 
cost  nothing)  were  ^200,702,849.  Subtract  this  sum 
from  the  8344,249,489,  and  we  have  $143,546,640  as  the 
amount  the  people  have  paid  through  incompetent  or 
dishonest  servants,  for  which  they  have  received  abso- 
lutely nothing  in  return.  Here  is  a triple  crime:  (1) 
A century  of  violations  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Union ; 
(2)  a century  of  violations  of  the  expressed  or  implied 
conditions  on  which  the  disposal  of  the  public  lands  was 
conferred  on  the  Congress;  and  ( 3)  a robbing  of  the  peo- 
ple of  an  amount  equal  to  about  $2.00  per  capita  of  the 
present  population  to  pay  the  expenses  incuiued  in 
squandering  an  empire. 

To  the  patriotic  Southern  man,  however,  while  right- 
eously indignant  at  this  century  of  spoliation  of  his  in- 
heritance and  misappropriation  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil, 
the  purpose  of  his  despoilers  has  been  even  more  exas- 
perating. This  purpose  has  been  honestly,  if  not  arro- 
gantly, avowed  in  the  halls  of  the  Congress.  In  a speech 
delivered  in  the  Senate  September  25,  1888,  by  Senator 
Plumb,  of  Kansas,  the  following  passage  occurs; 

‘111  Mr.  Webster's  speech  in  the  Senate,  March  7,  1850,  speaking 
of  Virginia’s  cession,  he  said : “There  have  been  received  into  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States  eighty  millions  of  dollars,  the  [iro- 
ceeds  of  the  sa]e<  of  the  public  lands  ceded  by  her.  It  the  residue 
should  be  sold  at  the  same  rate,  the  whole  aggregate  will  exceed 
two  hundred  millions  of  dollars.’’ 

“Public  Land  Coinini.ssion  Report,  1883,  page  17. 

“Congressional  Record.  Fiftieth  Congress,  First  Session,  page 
0,764. 


142 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


“It  is  therefore  but  natural  that  when  the  Democratic- 
Party  succeeded  to  power  in  1885, after  twenty-four  years 
of  enforced  retirement,  it  should  at  once  attack  the  Pe- 
publican  administration  of  the  public  lauds.  It  was  to 
be  expected  that  its  leaders  should  seek  to  break  down 
the  system  which  had  in  the  previous  quarter  century 
so  signally  multiplied,  developed  and  strengthened  the 
North.  ” ' 

And,  dear  reader,  the  disgraceful  work  is  not  yet 
ended.  According  to  the  report  of  the  General  Land 
Office  for  1896,  pages  194-8,  the  total  number  of  acres 
disposed  of  up  to  that  time  was  845,854,117,  and  the 
acres  yet  remaining  to  be  given  away  or  sold  were  600.  - 
040,671.  By  the  old  rule  of  three,  therefore,  (omitting 
all  the  squandering  after  1880.  of  which  the  statistics 
have  not  been  examined),  we  find  that  the  people  must 
pay  more  than  !S102,<)00,000,  and,  if  we  include  Alaska, 
their  burden  will  be  more  than  SIOO.OOO.OOO.  as  the  cost 
of  squandering  the  remaining  acres. 

But  this  calculation  does  not  present  the  matter  in  its 
most  alarming  aspect;  something  like  geometrical  pro- 
gression should  have  been  employed ; the  party  which 
has  “so  signally  multiplied,  developed,  and  strengthened 
the  North,’’  gave  away  for  railroads  and  wagon  roads, 
alone,  during  its  first  fourteen  years  of  control,  6^  times 
as  much  land  as  had  been  given  for  such  purposes  dur- 
ing all  the  preceding  seventy-seven  years  of  Congres- 
sional management;  and  the  average  annual  receipts 
into  the  Federal  treasury  (about  8854,000)  from  1861  fo 
1880  were  only  a little  over  one-fourth  of  what  they 
were  (83,115,000;  from  1804  to  1861. 

'Nevada,  with  a population  of  only  6.850  in  1860  (Census  Reports) 
was  erected  into  a State  on  October  31,  1864,  the  enabling  act  hav- 
ing been  passed  on  the  21st  of  tlie  preceding  March.  By  this 
shameful  proceeding  the  party  in  power  gained  three  electors  for 
Lincoln  and  Johnson,  and  ‘The  North”  gained  two  Senators. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


U?, 


The  people  may,  therefore,  expect  to  shoulder  a much 
heavier  burden  than  ^166,000,000.  The  costs  of  the  liti- 
gation with  the  Pacific  Eailroads  must  also  be  paid,  as 
well  as  the  losses  due  to  the  acceptance  of  inferior  secu- 
rity from  those  roads  for  tbe  !S564:,000,000  loaned  to  them. 
To  these  sums  also  must  he  added  the  cost  of  the  Court 
of  Private  Laud  Claims,  for  which  151,536  were  appro- 
priated in  1892,  the  expenses  of  the  Commissioner  of 
(Pacific)  Railroads,  for  whom  ^1-1,430  were  approiiriated 
in  1892,  and  the  costs  of  the  Geological  Survey  (the 
director  of  which  was  created  by  the  act  of  March  3, 
1879)  for  which  the  annual  appropriation  is  more  than 
$400,000,  being  $484, 640  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June 
30,  1894. 


Note  I. 

We  naturally  shrink  from  uncovering  the  “nakedness’’  of  our 
fathers;  hut  the  truth  sometimes  obliges  us  to  do  it. 

There  being  but  one  political  pai'ty  in  1824,  the  choice  foi‘  Presi- 
dent vas  a choice  of  persons ; and  the  field  was  full  of  candidates. 
“The  names  of  many  gentlemen,”  says  the  Statesman’s  Manual, 
“ were  mentioned  as  candidates,  but  the  number  gradually  dimin- 
ished until  the  contest  seemed  to  be  confined  to  William  H.  Craw- 
ford, John  Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay,  John  C.  Calhoun,  and  Gen. 
Andrew  Jackson.” 

Each  one  of  these  sought  to  commend  himself  to  the  people  by  an 
imposing  proof  of  his  patriotism.  The  “American)  system”  of  secur- 
ing the  “home  market”  to  manufacturers  in  the  United  States  was 
adopted  that  year;  and  the  first  “internal  iuiprovement  ” bill  be- 
came a law.  appropriating  130,000  for  .surveys  of  roads  and  canals. 
This  measure,  as  Mr.  Benton  is  unkind  enough  to  assert  in  his 
Thirty  Years’  View,  was  suppoi-ted  by  all  the  candidates  because 
each  one  hoped  to  be  carried  into  the  White  House  on  such  a wave 
of  po]3ularity  as  that  which  conveyed  DeWitt  Clinton  to  a high  seat 
among  heroes  when  the  Erie  Canal  was  completed. 

Note  K. 

Discreditable  as  it  may  seem,  party  advantage  has  had  much  to 
do  with  the  management  of  the  public  lands;  and  the  “ bounty  of 
the  Nation”  has  not  unfrequently  been  lavished  on  a Territory 
emerging  into  Statehood  to  influence  the  political  complexion  of  its 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


lU 


first  Legislature,  and  the  party  affiliations  of  its  6rst  two  Senators. 
Nor  does  it  appear  that  any  political  party  has  been  guiltless  of  ex- 
travagance for  such  a purpose. 

In  1841  those  who  for  the  first  time  had  come  into  control  of  Fed- 
eral legislation,  granted  to  the  new  States  500,000  acres,  each,  of  the 
public  lands  for  internal  improvements;  but  worse  than  this,  they 
directed  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  deposit  with  the  States 
certain  itroceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  and  hi  the  same  session 
they  directed  that  official  to  borrov,'  812,000,000  to  supply  deficien- 
cies alleged  to  have  been  created  by  their  political  ojjponents  dur 
ing  the  preceding  Administration,  This  same  Congress  doubled  the 
per  centum  (making  it  10)  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands 
in  their  borders  to  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois.  Alabama.  Dlissouri.  Mis- 
sissippi, Louisiana,  Arkansas  and  Michigan,  after  Decemler  31,  1841. 

In  August,  1848,  the  party  in  power,  trembling  at  the  spectre  of  a 
Waterloo  in  the  Presidential  election  of  that  year,  gave  evidence  of 
its  solicitude  for  the  advancement  of  the  people  in  the  higher  walks 
o*"  intelligent  citizenship  by  doubling  the  gift  of  school  lands  in  the 
new  States. 

In  1850  the  party  which  had  come 'into  power  under  the  ^ving  of 
General  Taylor,  strengthened  its  support  in  certain  quarters  by  do- 
nating 3,830,093  acres  of  land  for  the  construction  of  the  Illinois 
Central  and  the  Mobile  and  Ohio  River  Railroads. 

But  all  this  was  moderation  when  compared  to  what  was  done 
in  1864.  The  possibility  of  disaster  to  the  rulers  in  the  election  of 
that  year  led  them  to  make  grants  to  Nebraska  amounting,  in  all. 
to  98  acres  of  land  and  8111  in  money  to  every  human  being  in  the 
Territory,  as  shown  by  the  census  of  1860 ; and  these  same  rulers 
gained  two  new  Senators  a short  time  afterwards  by  erecting  that 
Territory,  with  a population  of  28,841,  into  a State  1 

Notk  L. 

One  of  the  “conditions"  in  the  Ordinance  for  the  government  of 
the  Northwest  Territory  was  the  anti-slavery  article;  and  smce 
there  has  been  much  discussion  as  to  who  was  entitled  to  credit  for 
that  article,  it  may  be  acceptable  to  jiresent  here  the  history  of  it, 
as  it  is  given  by  Hinsdale  and  other  writers. 

After  Yh-ginia  determined  to  cede  her  claims  to  the  territory  north 
of  the  Ohio,  a plan  for  forming  a new  State  in  that  territory  was  in 
contemplation;  and  on  June  16,  1783.  two  hundred  and  eighty  five 
officers  of  the  Continental  line  of  the  army  (155  from  Massachusetts, 
34  from  New  Hampshire,  46  from  Connecticut,  36  from  New  Jersey, 
13  from  Maryland,  and  1 from  New  York)  petitioned  Congress  to 
assign  and  mark  out  the  boundaries  by  Lake  Erie  on  the  north, 
etc  , etc.  One  object  was  to  exchange  81.000,000  of  " Continental  " 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


14-0 


money  for  land;  and  another  was  to  have  bounty  lands  assigned  to 
the  petitioners. 

Afterwards,  Virginia’s  cession  having  been  perfected,  an  “Ohio 
Company  ot  Associates’’  was  organized  at  the  “Bunch  of  Grapes,’’ 
in  Boston,  March  3,  1786,  v/hich  next  year,  while  Congress  was  con- 
sidering a reported  Ordinance  for  the  government  ot  the  North vi^est 
Territory,  sent  Gien.  S.  H.  Pai-sons,  of  Middletown,  Conn.,  to  engineer 
their  scheme  through  the  Congress.  From  May  11  to  July  4 thei’e 
was  no  quorum,  many  of  the  members,  including  nearly  all  the 
ablest,  being  in  the  Convention  in  Philadelphia;  and  hence  noth 
ing  was  done.  General  Parsons  having  gone  home.  Dr.  Manas, seh 
Cutler,  of  Ipswich,  Mass.,  took  his  place  as  agent. 

On  July  9 a new  committee  was  apiaointed,  and  reported  an  Ordi 
nance  on  the  11th  with  no  reference  to  slavery.  This  committee 
was  composed  of  Carrington  and  Lee.  of  Virginia;  Dane,  of  Massa- 
chusetts; Kean,  of  South  Carolina;  and  Smith,  of  New  York,  only 
eight  States  being  present — Mas.sachusetts,  New  York,  New  Jersey, 
Delaware,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia — 
and  eleven  of  the  eighteen  delegates  being  Southern  men. 

The  pi-oposition  ot  the  Ohio  Company  was  that  they  would  pur- 
chase a large  body  of  land,  provided  a new  article  excluding  slavery 
were  added  to  the  Ordinance  already  virtually  agreed  to:  and  this 
was  done  by  the  vote  of  every  delegate  present  except  Abates,  of  New 
York.  And  This  “immortal”  work  was  done  by  eight  States, 
although  the  pledge  made  to  the  land  States,  October  10,  1780,  de 
dared  that  the  lands  should  be  granted  or  settled  “at  such  times 
and  under  such  regulations  as  shall  hereafter  be  agreed  on  by  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  or  nine  or  more  of  them.’’ 

The  Ordinance,  therefore,  was  passed  without  authority ; nor  was 
there  any  “humanity’’  in  it.  It  was  solely  a business  transaction. 
The  Congress  needed  money;  the  trading  and  speculating  classes  of 
the  Northeastern  States  had  it.  The  Ohio  Company  took  1,500,000 
acres,  and  the  Scioto  Coinjiany,  under  the  leadershii)  of  Col.  'V’il 
liam  Duer,  of  northern  New  York,  purchased  3,500,000  acres.  “The 
total  price  agreed  upon  was  83.500.000;  but  as  the  payments  were 
made  in  public  securities  worth  only  12 >4  cents  on  a dollar,  the  real 
price  w'as  only  eight  or  nine  cents  per  acre.”  ' 

As  to  the  “humanity”  involved  in  the  bargain,  the  reader  can 
form  his  own  opinion.  Dr.  Cutler,  Gen.  Rufus  Putnam,  General 
Parsons,  and  others  led  an  expedition  of  New  Englanders  to  the 
Territory  in  1788,  laid  out  and  settled  Marietta,  and  they,  with  the 

' This  was  equivalent  to  a gratuity  of  83,062,500  to  these  Northern 
gentlemen,  an  amount  equal  to  about  one  dollar  from  every  human 
being  in  the  United  States  at  that  time. 

10 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


other  Northern  people  who  went  and  seltled  the  lands  of  the  Scioto 
Company,  shaped  that  imblic  sentiment  which  forbade  the  immi- 
gration of  free  negroes,  and,  in  the  State  Constitution  of  1802,  de- 
nied the  ballot  to  free  persons  of  color! 

And  yet  the  columns  of  magazines  and  newspapers  up  North  have 
groaned  for  years  under  the  weight  of  articles  wi-itten  to  prove  that 
all  the  glory  emanating  from  that  “immortal"  act  belongs  to  Nathan 
Dane,  of  Massachusetts,  forgetting  that  Dane’s  Article  provided, 
also,  for  the  return  of  fugitive  slaves. 

The  “bargain’’  in  this  Ordinance  brings  to  mind  another  "human- 
itarian,” who  went  out  to  Kansas  with  “ the  Bible  and  Sharpe’s 
rifles,”  It  Av as  Eli  Thayer,  of  Massachusetts.  Avho  “organized  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Company  in  18o3-’o4  to  settle  the  iieAv  State  of  Kan- 
sas Avith  anti  slavery  colonists.”  In  his  Kansas  Cr?/.s-f/de,  page  o8. 
he  exhibits  the  “bargain”  instinct  as  folloAA's; 

“My  original  plan  was,  as  Ave  have  seen,  to  form  a business  com- 
pany, to  be  conducted  on  business  principles,  able  to  make  good  diA-- 
idends  to  its  stockholders  annually,  and.  at  its  clo.se.  a full  return  of 
all  the  money  originally  inA’ested.” 

Note  M. 

The  Territories  have  been  governed  so  long  by  the  Federal  (lov- 
ernnient,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  all  the  States,  t'nat  the 
supposition  is  almost  unavoidable  that  such  paternalism  Ls  Avar 
ranted  by  the  Constitution,  or,  that,  at  any  rate,  it  could  be  justified 
by  that  necessity  Avhich  is  ever  the  tyrant’s  excuse  for  his  usurpa- 
tions. 

But  thei'e  is  not  "the  least  color  of  Constitutional  authority."  un- 
less AV'e  regard  the  settlers  in  the  Territory  as  liropertA’.  since  it  is 
“proijerty”  which  the  Congress  is  empowered  "to  dispose  of  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting."  Nor  does  the 
claim  of  necessity  rest  on  any  better  support.  The  people  of  Ver- 
mont took  care  of  themselves,  at  their  own  expense,  during  all  their 
Territorial  existence  (from  17TG  to  1791) : and  the  people  of  California 
— the  most  heterogeneous  and  turbulent  mass  of  human  beings  to 
be  found  anywhere  in  the  world — governed  themselves  at  their  own 
expense  during  their  Territorial  existence  (1848  tc  1850).  And  there 
is  no  imaginable  reason  why  the  people  of  Kansas  or  Colorado  could 
not  have  done  likeAvise. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


liT 


- CHAPTER  XII. 

THE  WAR  OF  1812,  THE  CONDUCT  OF  NEW  ENGLAND, 
AND  THE  WAR  DEBT. 

The  unjust  and  unconstitutional  congestion  of  the 
money  of  the  country  in  the  “regions  north  of  the  Po- 
tomac,’’ by  Federal  legislation,  gave  to  those  who  had 
been  the  chief  beneficiaries  an  undue  control  over  the 
administration  of  the  government,  which  they  have 
never  relinquished. 

The  first  opportunity  they  had  to  show  their  power 
in  an  effective  way  was  when  the  war  broke  out  in  1812. 

The  discontent  produced  in  New  England  by  the  em- 
bargo and  the  non-intercourse  acts  then  began  to  be 
more  demonstrative,  and  the  opposition  to  Mr.  Madison 
and  his  advisers  strengthened  and  grew  in  violence. 
They  threw  all  the  obstructions  they  could  in  his  way; 
they  demanded  out  of  the  Federal  treasury  the  last  cent 
due  on  their  Federal  securities;  they  gathered  into  their 
banks,  in  specie,  every  cent  due  them  from  the  banks 
of  the  Central,  Southern,  and  Western  States,  and  then 
refused  to  loan  their  money  to  the  Administration. — 
Carey. 

The  reader,  familiar  with  the  progress  of  Federal  legis- 
lation up  to  1812,  can  realize  Mr.  Madison’s  embarrass- 
ment unless  he  could  secure  loans  of  this  money.  There 
was  no  power  in  Congress  to  “emit  bills  of  credit” — the 
clause  in  the  final  draft  of  the  Constitution  granting 
this  power  was  deliberately  stricken  out  by  the  Conven- 
tion. Hence  loans  of  some  sort  were  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  a successful  prosecution  of  the  war. 

This  want  of  power  was  deplored  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  who, 
in  a letter  to  Mr.  Eppes,  Chairman  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Committee,  written  in  June,  1813,  said;  “The 


148 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


States  should  be  applied  to  to  transfer  the  right  of  issu- 
ing circulating  paper  to  Congress  exclusively,  in  per- 
petuum,  if  possible,  but  during  the  war  at  least.”  ‘ 

On  March  14,  1812,  before  war  was  declared.  Congress 
authorized  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  borrow 
111,000,000.  By  September  1st  he  had  secured  only 
16,847,212,  of  which  he  paid  $5,486,478  on  the  public 
debt,  about  one-half  of  it  interest,  and  the  other  half 
principal . 

On  December  1,  1812,  after  the  war  had  been  going 
on  about  six  months,  the  Secretary  reported  that  all  he 
had  obtained  or  secured  during  the  whole  year — includ- 
ing that  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph — was 
$13,100,200,  a part  of  it  in  exchange  for  5 per  cent 
Treasury  notes.  ^ 

On  February  8,  1813,  Congress  authorized  a loan  of 
$16,000,000;  and  four  days  afterwards  the  Secretary 
opened  the  subscription,  but  with  little  success. 

On  March  26th  he  again  opened  the  subscription, 
offering  not  only  6 per  cent  per  annum,  hut  an  annuity 
of  1 per  cent  per  annum  for  13  years.  But  this  proposi- 
tion brought  him  only  $3,956,400;  and  in  his  despera- 
tion he  invited  proposals  in  writing.  Thereupon  offers 
amounting  to  about  $17,000,()()0  were  received,  some 
demanding  an  annuity  of  14  per  cent  in  addition  to  6 
per  cent  at  par,  but  most  of  them  requiring  a 6 per 
cent  stock  at  the  rate  of  88  per  cent.  On  these  terms, 
leaving  to  subscribers  the  option,  the  loan  was  effected. 

“In  conformity  with  public  notification  the  same  terms 
were  extended  to  those  persons  who  had  subscribed  on 
the  first  opening  of  the  subscription  (February  12),  and 
they  hare  the  same  option ; which  if  the  stock,  at  the 


1 It  was  transferred  in  1862  without  applying  to  the  States. 
These  were  United  States  bonds  of  small  denominatioits. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


149 


rate  of  88  per  cent  be  taken,  is  equivalent  precisely  to 
a premium  of  $13.63  11-100  for  each  $100  loaned  to  the 
Government.  ” '• 

On  these  terms  the  $16,00(t,000  loan  was  effected, 
yielding  to  the  Treasury  $13,819,024. 

As  interesting  souvenirs  of  those  times,  two  of  the 
proposals  are  appended.  The  first  is  as  follows : 

“Sir: — I will  take  $2,056,000  worth  of  loan  author- 
ized by  Gongress,  receiving  6 per  cent  stock  at  the  rate 
of  $88,  money,  for  $100  of  6 per  cent  stock,  payable  in 
New  York  by  installments  as  proposed  by  you,  or  as 
otherwise  may  be  agreed  on.  I am  to  receive  i per 
cent  for  procuring  subscriptions,  etc. 

“ John  Jacob  Astor. 

“ Philadelphia,  April  6,  1813. 

“ Hon.  Albert  Gallatin, 

“Secretary  of  the  Treasury.” 

The  second  is  as  follows : 

“We  offer  to  take  as  much  stock  as  we  can  ($8,000,- 
000),  bearing  interest  at  6 per  cent,  payable  quarter-an- 
nually,  the  stock  not  to  be  redeemed  before  December 
31,  1825,  at  the  rate  of  $88  for  a certificate  of  $100,  pro- 
vided you  will  agree  to  allow  us  the  option  of  accepting 
the  same  terms  that  may  be  granted  to  persons  lending 
money  to  the  United  States  by  virtue  of  any  law  for 
the  service  of  the  year  1813,  that  Congress  may  pass  be- 
fore the  last  day  of  the  present  year.  Also  that  ^ of  1 
per  cent  be  allowed  us  on  the  amount  to  which  the  pres- 
ent proposals  will  be  accepted. 

“ David  Parish, 

“ Stephen  Girard. 

“ Philadelphia,  April  5,  1813.” 


'American  State  Papers,  Finance,  Volume  II,  page  622. 


150 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


On  page  661  of  the  volume  is  a list  of  subscribers, 
1813,  who  took  $7,000,000  of  stock,  which  is  interesting 
enough  to  be  appended  here. 


Jonathan  Smith,  Philadelphia, 

Jacob  Barker.  New  York, 

O.  Campbell,  Philadelphia, 

Pitz  Greene  Halleck,  N.  Y., 

Thomas  W.  Bacot,  Charleston,  S.  C.,  - 
Wiliam  Cochran,  Boston,  Mass., 

George  T.  Dunbar,  Baltimore,  • 

G.  B.  Vroom.  New  York, 

Henry  Kiihl,  Philadelphia, 

Isaac  McKim,  Baltimore, 

Whitehead  Fi.sh,  New  York, 

John  Duer,  Baltimore, 

William  Cochran,  Baltimore, 

Jacob  G.  Koch,  Philadelphia, 

William  Whanu,  Washington,  1).  C..  - 
James  Cox,  Baltimore, 

Thomas  Camming,  Augu.sta,  Ga. . 


82,1.52,000 

1,43.5.000 

468.000 

288.000 
221,000 

151.000 

147.000 

144.000 
144,000 

144.000 

118.000 
118,000 
110,000 
108,000 

73.000 

72.000 

72.000 


On  March  24,  1814,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the 
borrovnug  of  $25,000,000,  to  be  redeemable  December 
30,  1826,  the  interest  at  6 percent  payable  quarterly : 
and  appropriating  $8,000,000  annually  to  pay  the  inter- 
est and  ultimately  the  princiiial. 

In  pursuance  of  this  act  proposals  were  invited  on  the 
4th  of  April,  and  the  offer  of  $5,000,000  by  Jacob  Barker, 
of  New  York,  April  30,  was  accepted  as  follows; 


“Sir: — Eighty-eight  dollars  in  money  for  each  $100 
in  stock,  and,  if  more  favorable  terms  are  offered  any 
vidio  lend  any  of  the  same  sum,  you  may  be  favored  in 
the  same  way. 

“ G.  W.  Campbell. 

“Secretary  Treasury.  ’ * 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


151 


On  the  same  terms  the  following  persons  loaneil  the 
sums  annexed  to  their  names: 


Peleg  Taliiian,  Hath.  Me.^  , - i?25,000 

Levi  Cutter,  Portland,  Me.,  ....  95,000 

John  Woodman.  Portland,  Me.,  ■ 50,000 

Elenry  Langdon,  Portsmouth.  N.  H.,  • ■ - 40,000 

J.  'W.  Treadwell,  Salem,  Mass.,  - ■ ■ 410,000 

Thomas  Perkins,  Salem,  Mass.,  - 25,000 

William  (tray,  Boston,  Mass.,  ...  197.000 

Samuel  l>ana.  Boston,  Mass.,  - - •-  25,000 

Jesse  Putnam,  Boston,  Ma,ss.,  ....  67,900 

Amos  Binney,  Boston,  Mass.,  . . . . 35,000 

Nathan  AVaterman,  Providence,  R.  I.,  - 35,000 

Janies  D‘ Wolf, ' Bristol,  R.  I.,  - • - - 100,000 

John  Shearman,  Newport,  R.  1.,  ■ - 35,000 

Elisha  Tracey,  Norwich,  Conn.,  - - 30,000 

Michael  Shepard,  Hartford,  Conn.,  ■ - - 25,000 

Abraham  Bishop,  New  Haven,  Conn.,  - 25,000 

John  Taylor,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  - ■ ■ - 150,000 

Alamon  Doug-lass,  Troj^  N.  Y.,  - 50,000 

Smith  & Nichol,  New  York.,  . . . . 80,000 

.Harmon  tiendricks.  New  York,  ■ 42,000 

G.  B.  Yroom,  New  Y'ork,  . _ . . 500,000 

Samuel  Flewelling,  New  York,  - - - 257,000 

.Jacob  Barker,  New  York,  - 5,000,000 

AVhitehead  .Fish,  New  York,  . . . . 250,000 

Guy  Bryan,  Philadelphia,  ....  50,000 

Thomas  Newman,  Philadelphia,  ■ • - 108,000 

Samuel  Caswell,  Philadelphia,  28,000 

Paul  Beck,  Philadeliihia,  ....  50,000 

William  Patterson, Baltimore,  ■ ■ 50,000 

George  T.  Dunbar,  Baltimore,  ■ 191,000 

James  Cox,  Baltimore,  . . . . 71,000 

Dennis  Smith,  Baltimore,  ....  200,000 


'James  D’Wolf  made  his  fortune  bj'  following  1 he  slave  trade; 
was  elected  to  the  United  States  Senate  hr  1821  by  the  Legislature 
of  Rhode  Island ; resigired  his  seat  in  1825 ; removed  to  Havana;  and 
lived  there  several  years  as  president  of  a slave  tradiirg  company. 

"Wiliarrr  Pattersorr,  whose  daughter  married  Jerome  Bonaparte, 
was  an  Irishman,  who,  as  the  owner  of  a line  of  ships,  had  beconre 
the  wealthiest  nran  in  Maryland,  excejrt  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carroll- 
ton. 


152 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


Samuel  Elliot,  Washington,  D.  C., 
Alexander  Carr,  Washington,  D.  C., 
W"illiain  Warren,  Washington,  D.  C., 
Anthony  Cazonave,  Alexandria,  Ya., 
Charles  Cochran,  Charleston,  S.  C., 
David  Alexander,  Charleston,  S.  C., 
John  Lukins,  Charleston,  S.  C., 


100,000 

23.000 
42,500 

30.000 

250.000 

60.000 

70.000 

115.000 

25.000 

190.000 

176.000 


Thomas  W.  Bacot,  Charleston,  S.  C., 
James  Taylor,  Newport,  Ky., 


William  Whann,  Washington,  D.  C., 
Robert  Jennings,  Richmond,  Ya., 


On  these  sums,  paid  for,  says  the  Statesman's  Manual 
(Vol.  I,  p.  363),  with  depreciated  State-bank  bills  (alb 
except  a few  banks,  it  says,  in  New  England,  having 
suspended  specie  payments),  these  parties  cleared  13.61 
per  cent  at  the  time  of  the  loan,  and  a fraction  over 
6.91-  per  cent,  interest  per  annum,  which  had  to  be  paid, 
in  part,  by  the  men  who  were  in  the  armies  enduring 
all  the  hardships  and  exposing  themselves  to  all  the  dan- 
gers incident  to  war,  in  defense  of  the  rights,  honor 
and  dignity  of  the  United  States!  And  while  all  but 
seven  of  the  subscribers  lived  north  of  the  Potomac, 
only  six  lived  in  Massachusetts,  although  as  the  States- 
man’s Manual  says  (Vol.  I,  p.  351:),  ‘hhe  war  may  be 
said  to  have  been  a measure  of  the  South  and  West,  to 
take  care  of  the  interest  of  the  North" — New  England 
— “much  against  the  will  of  the  latter." 

The  entire  amount  borrowed  is  said  by  good  authori- 
ties to  have  been  about  S61:,00(».000 ; but  the  public  debt 
in  1817  was  nearly  886.000,000  more  than  it  was  in 
1811,  and,  if  we  add  the  more  than  85.000.00o  borrowed 
and  paid  out  again  in  1812,  the  total  war  debt  was 
nearer  891,000.000;  and  since  the  population  .was  about 
8,000,000,  the  per  capita  debt  was  811.37,  nine-tenths 
of  it  due  “north  of  the  Potomac." 

All  this  embarrassment  of  the  Administration,  which 
ultimately  drove  Mr.  Madison  to  abandon  in  the  treaty 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


153 


of  peace  the  very  ground  on  which  war  was  declared — 
the  impressment  of  seamen — was  the  work  of  the  com- 
mercial class  in  New  England,  aided  by  their  sympa- 
thizers in  other  States.  * “Shortly  after  the  declaration 
of  war,”  says  Carey,  “there  was  a combination  formed 
to  prevent  the  success  of  the  loans  authorized  by  Con- 
gress. I believe  that  all  those  who  entered  into  this 
scheme  resided  in  the  Eastern  States,  particularly  in 
Boston,  which  was  the  grand  focus  of  the  conspiracy.  ” — 
Page  386.  Again  he  says : “Every  possible  exertion  was 
made  in  Boston  to  deter  the  citizens  from  subscribing 
to  the  loans.  Associations  were  entered  into  in  the  most 
solemn  and  public  manner  to’^this  effect.  And  those 
who  could  not  be  induced  by  mild  measures  were  deter- 
red by  denunciations.  A volume  might  be  filled  with 
the  lucubrations  that  appeared  on  this  subject. 

“The  pulpit,  as  usual  in  Boston,  came  in  aid  of  the 
press  to  secure  success.  Those  who  subscribed  were  in 
direct  terms  declared  participators  in,  and  accessories  to, 
all  the  ‘murders.’  ” — Page  289. 

One  of  the  “lucubrations”  is  quoted  by  Carey  from 
John  Lowell’s  Road  to  Ruin,  as  follows:  “Money  is 
such  a drug  (the  surest  sign  of  former  prosperity  and 
present  insecurity  of  trade)  that  men,  against  their  con- 
sciences, their  honor,  their  duty,  their  professions  and 
promises,  are  willing  to  lend  it  secretly,  to  support  the 
very  measures  which  are  both  intended  and  calculated 
for  their  ruin.  ’ ’ 

^On  June  27,  1814,  while  preparations  were  going  on  for  the  hold- 
ing of  the  “Hartford  Convention,’’  Mr.  Monroe,  Secretary  of  State, 
giving  instructions  to  the  Commissioners  apviointed  to  negotiate  a 
treaty  of  peace,  said:  “On  mature  consideration,  it  has  been  de- 
cided, that  under  all  the  circumstances  above  alluded  to,  incident 
to  a prosecution  of  the  war,  you  may  omit  any  stipulation  on  the 
subject  of  impressment,  if  found  indisi^ensably  necessary  to  termi- 
nate it.’’ 


154- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


But  notwithstanding-  the  ravings  of  the  schemers,  a 
few  persons  had  the  courage  to  defy  them.  Among 
these  was  ex-President  John  Adams,  who.  writing  to  a 
friend  in  July,  1812,  thus  expressed  himself:  “It  is  with 
surprise  that  I hear  it  pronounced  not  only  by  newspa- 
pers, but  by  persons  in  authority,  ecclesiastical  and  civil, 
and  political  and  military,  that  it  is  an  unjust  and  uu- 
necessai'y  war  * * I have  thought  it  both  just 

and  necessary  for  five  or  six  years.  '•"  I have 

expected  it  more  than  five  and  twenty  years."  ‘ 

It  would  be  inexcusable  to  class  all  the  people  of  the 
commercial  States  with  the  traders  and  speculators; 
there  weie  many  emineift  gentlemen  who  strove  to  calm 
the  storm  raised  by  the  agitators.  But  in  vain ; it  swept 
nearly-  everything  before  it. 

And  it  would  be  uncandid  not  to  admit  that  during 
the  last  tvAo  years  of  the  war  the  people  of  Massachu- 
setts and  Connecticut  were  subjected  to  many*  hardships 
and  endured  many  grievous  wrongs  because  of  the  fail- 
ure of  the  Federal  authorities  to  afford  them  adequate 
protection  against  invasion,  sack,  and  pillage  by  British 
forces;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  the  real  responsibility 
lay  at  the  doors  of  the  agitators,  who  having  done  all 
they  could  to  weaken  the  Federal  arm,  were  vile  enough 
to  mislead  the  people  and  direct  their  discontent  aginst 
Mr.  Madison  and  the  Southern  people  in  general. 

In  the  midst  of  all  the  provocations,  however,  the 
South  held  out  the  olive  branch  in  the  shape  of  concilia- 
tory legislation;^  and  by  1820  there  was  on  the  surface 
an  “era  of  good  feeling,”  manifested  in  the  casting  of 
all  but  one  of  the  electoral  votes  for  Mr.  Monroe's  re- 
election  to  the  Presidency.  It  was  only  “on  the  sur- 
face'’; that  very  year  the  contest  ever  the  admission  of 

'See  Life  of  John  Adams  in  Conrad's  Lives  of  the  Signers  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence. 

^ See  Note  N. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


155 


Missouri  revealed  a determination  in  the  North  to  de- 
stroy the  power  of  the  South  in  the  Federal  councils. 

This  imperfect  picture  of  political  movements  preced- 
ing, during,  and  immediately  succeeding  the  War  of  1812. 
though  wanting  in  much  of  the  coloring  which  really 
belongs  to  it,  is  sufficiently  vivid  to  enable  us  to  discern 
three  things: 

1.  That  the  commercial  class  in  New  Englamd  prefer- 
red to  pursue  their  ocean  traffic  with  all  the  insults  and 
vexations  Great  Britain  saw  fit  to  inflict  on  them,  ralher 
than  to  allow  the  President  and  the  Congress  to  defend 
the  rights  and  the  dignity  of  the  United  States  against 
the  aggressions  of  that  proud  mistress  of  the  seas. 

2.  That  by  the  operation  of  Federal  laws,  supplement- 
ing natural  and  other  artificial  forces,  the  wealth  of  the 
South  had,  even  up  to  1812,  been  flowing  in  large 
streams  to  the  “regions  north  of  the  Potomac.” 

3.  And  that  the  channel  along  which  it  had  flowed  was 
then  deepened  and  widened. 


Note  N. 

After  excitement  sprang-  up  in  New  England  in  consequence  of 
non-importation  acts,  conciliatory  measures  marked  the  policy  of 
the  Administration  and  its  friends  in  Congress.  Those  in  that  sec- 
tion who  had  at  all  distinguished  themselves  in  military  or  civil  life 
seem  to  have  been  prefei-red  over  others  for  posts  of  honor. 

1.  William  Hull,  of  Massachu-setts,  appointed  Governor  of  Michi- 
gan Territory  by  Mr.  Jeff ei son  in  1805,  was  continued  in  office  by 
Mr.  Madison. 

2.  Dr.  William  Eustis,  of  Massachusetts,  who,  the  Statesman’s 
Manual  says,  “ knew  but  little  of  military  affairs,”  was  appointed 
Secretary  of  War  in  1809  by  Mr.  Madison,  and  Minister  to  the  Neth 
erlands  in  1814. 

3.  Joseph  B.  Varnum.  of  Massachusetts,  was  elected  Speaker  of 
the  Hou.se  of  Rejiresentatives  in  December,  1807,  and  again  in  1809. 

4.  Henry  Dearborn,  of  Massachusetts,  the  predeces,sor  of  William 
Eustis  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War,  served  from  1801  fo  1809;  he 
was  then  appointed  Collector  of  the  port  of  Boston,  and  held  the 
office  till  1812,  when  he  was  appointed  Senior  Major-General — Coni- 
mander-in-Chief — United  States  Army. 

5.  Gideon  Gx’anger,  of  Connecticut,  was  appointed  Postmaster 


156 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


General  in  1801  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  was  continued  in  office  by  Mr. 
Madison. 

6.  Joel  Barlow,  of  Connecticut,  was  appointed  Minister  to  France 
in  1811. 

7.  John  Quincy  Adams,  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed  Minister 
to  Russia  in  1809;  declined  the  office  of  Associate  Justice  of  the  Fed- 
ei’al  Supreme  Court,  offered  him  while  he  was  in  Russia ; was  ap- 
pointed in  1813  one  of  the  Peace  Commissioners ; was  then  appointed 
Minister  to  England,  etc.,  etc. 

8.  Levi  Lincoln  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed  Associate  Jus- 
tice of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  by  Mr.  Madison  in 
1811.  He  declined  the  office. 

9.  Joseph  Story  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed  Associate  Justice 
of  the  Suijreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  1811  by  Mr.  Madison. 

10.  George  W.  Erving  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed  Minister 
to  Spain  in  1814  by  Mr.  Madison. 

11.  Elbridge  Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  was  chosen  as  Mr.  Madison’s 
running  mate  on  the  Presidential  ticket  in  1812,  Governor  and  ex- 
Senator  John  Langdon  of  New  Hampshire,  having  declined  the 
honor. 

12.  Benjamin  W.  Crowninshield  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed 
Secretary  of  the  Navw  in  1814.  And 

13.  Jonathan  Russell  of  Massachusetts,  was  appointed  Minister  to 
Sweden  in  1814;  was  on  the  Peace  Commission  with  J.  Q.  Adams 
and  others;  and  was  retained  as  Minister  to  Sweden  by  Mr.  Monroe. 

In  addition  to  thus  honoring  that  section,  some  special  favors  were 
bestowed  on  certain  of  its  industries: 

1.  The  act  of  July  29,  1813,  granted  a drawback  on  imported  salt 
used  in  curing  fish,  while  denying  it  to  persons  who  cured  beef  and 
pork,  as  is  explained  in  another  chapter. 

2.  An  “important  bill”  was  passed  through  the  efforts  of  Mr. 
Cheve::  of  South  Carolina,  in  the  winter  of  1812-'13.  remitting  all 
fines,  penalties  and  forfeitures  imposed  on  the  many  \’iolators  of  the 
Non  importation  Acts. 

3.  An  act  was  passed  in  the  winter  of  181.5-’16  allowing  a diawback 
on  sugar  refined,  and  on  rum  made  from  molasses. 

4.  An  act  was  passed  in  the  winter  of  1816-’17  jn’ohibiting  foreign 
vessels  from  transportmg  goods  to  the  United  States  unless  they 
were  produced  in  the  countries  to  which  the  vessels  belonged. 

5.  And  in  the  winter  of  1817-’18  an  act  was  passed  to  extend  for 
seven  j^ears  the  act  of  1816,  which  was  to  expire  in  1819,  levmng  a 
tax  of  25  per  cent  on  all  woolen  and  cotton  goods  imported  from  a 
foreign  country,  in  order  to  enable  New  England  and  other  manu- 
facturers of  similar  goods  to  control  the  “home  market.”  ^ 


' See  Statesman’s  Manual,  Vol.  I,  jiages  348-548. 


4 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


157 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

HOW  THE  POWER  TO  LAY  AND  COLLECT  TAXES  HAS  BEEN 

USED  TO  ENRICH  THE  NORTHERN  STATES  AT  THE  EX- 
PENSE OF  THE  SOUTH. 

The  tariff  question  has  been  discussed  for  more  than 
a century,  and  the  masses  of  the  people  are  apparently 
as  far  from  an  intelligent  understanding  of  it  as  they 
were  when  Hamilton  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ; 
and,  worse,  still,  as  Jean -Baptiste  Say  said  in  his  Politi- 
cal Economy,  ninety-five  years  ago,  the  victims  of  “pro- 
tection” “are  the  first  to  abuse  the  enlightened  individ- 
uals who  are  really  advocating  their  interests.” 

It  requires  a degree  of  courage,  therefore,  to  ask  the 
reader  to  give  patient,  if  not  interested,  attention  while 
we  thrash  over  old  straw;  but  the  object  in  view  con- 
strains us  to  do  it. 

When  the  Federal  Government  was  inaugurated  under 
the  Constitution,  possessing  the  power  to  “lay  and  col- 
lect taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,”  a few  years 
of  experience  taught  the  statesmen  of  those  times  the 
lesson  which  had  been  learned  in  other  countries  ages 
before,  namely,  that  indirect  taxation  was  least  liable 
to  excite  popular  discontent. 

The  different  methods  of  supplying  the  treasury,  with 
the  reasons  for  and  against  them,  were  something  like 
the  following: 

1.  A poll  or  property  tax  would  require  a set  of  Fed- 
eral assessors,  list-takers,  and  collectors  in  every  county 
in  the  Union,  in  addition  to  the  State  and  county  offi- 
cers. The  people  would  object  to  this;  but,  worse  still, 
they  would  know  how  much  tax  they  paid. 

2.  A part  of  what  every  man  produced — an  excise — 
could  be  taken  for  the  use  of  the  treasury;  but  this 


158 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


would  have  been  even  more  objectionable  than  a poll  or 
property  tax.  And 

3.  A tax  could  be  collected  at  the  custom-house  on 
articles  imported  from  foreign  countries;  and  since  the 
importer  could  reimburse  himself  when  he  sold  the 
goods  to  consumers,  he  would  have  no  cause  for  com- 
plaint, and  the  consumers  would  not  see  the  tax  hidden 
in  the  price.  ^ 

By  the  last  of  these  methods  there  was  scarcely  a limit 
to  the  burden  which  could  safely  be  laid  on  the  people ; 
oue-half,  or  more,  of  their  annual  expenses  for  sugar, 
coffee,  tea,  salt,  mauufactures  of  iron  and  steel,  cloth- 
ing, hats,  shoes,  etc.,  etc.,  could  be  taken  from  them 
without  their  realizing  the  enormity  of  the  tax,  or  who 
was  I esponsihle  for  high  prices.  - 

Hence  this  was  adopted ; and  as  the  consequent  high 
prices  of  foreign  articles  encouraged  people  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  to  enter  upon  the  manufacture  of  similar  arti- 
cles, it  soon  became  the  favorite  method.  In  the  course 

' “The  excise,  being-,  a.  tax  which  people  could  see  and  feel.  wa.s 
very  unpopular,  and  in  1794  the  opposition  to  it  in  \A^estern  Penn- 
sylvania grew  into  the  famous  ‘Whiskey  Insurrection,"  against 
which  President  Washington  thought  it  prudent  to  send  an  army  of 
16,000  men — as  many  as  he  had  commanded  at  Yorktown.  * * * 

“Nowhere  was  there  any  such  violent  opposition  to  Hamilton’s 
scheme  of  custom-house  duties  on  imported  .goods.  - * The 

people  do  not  flock  to  the  (;ustom  house  and  pay  the  duty,  but  the 
importer  pays  it,  and  then  reimburses  himself  by  adding  the  amount 
of  the  duty  to  the  pi'ice  of  the  goods  on  which  he  has  paid  it.  In 
this  way  vast  sums  of  money  can  be  taken  from  people’s  pockets 
without  their  realizing  it.  * * When  a tax  is  wrapped  up  in 

the  extra  fifty  cents  paid  to  a merchant  for  a yard  of  foreign  cloth, 
it  is  so  eft'ectually  hidden  that  most  people  do  not  know  it  is  there.” 
— Fiske’s  Civil  Government  in  the  United  States,  page  ‘.2o8. 

It  may  be  added  that  when  a similar  article  made  in  the  United 
States  is  bought  at  the  same  price,  fifty  cents  of  it  is  the  amount 
paid  as  a bonus  to  the  manufacturer  by  the  command  of  Congress, 
and  that  this  fifty  cents  is  ,iust  as  “efiectually  hidden.’’ 

See  Note  O. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


159 


of  time,  ,TS  the  ad  vantages  of  this  “encouragement” 
were  more  and  more  appreciated,  tariff  acts  came  to  he 
looked  upon  as  acts  to  “protect”  domestic  manufacturers 
against  those  of  foreign  countries,  the  raising  of  revenue 
being  regarded  as  of  secondary  consideration.  For  the 
first  twenty-three  years,  however,  the  rates  did  not  go 
above  an  average  of  17-i  per  cent;  but  from  about  1807 
to  1815  the  embargo,  the  non-intercourse  acts,  and  the 
War  afforded  a more  powerful  “protection”  than  any 
tariff  act  could. ' The  exigencies  of  war,  too,  induced 
Congress  to  double  the  rates  formerly  imposed. 

“Manufactures,  thus  powerfully  encouraged,”  says 
Vethake’s  Political  Economy,  “sprang  into  existence  in 
the  Northern  and  Middle  States,  where,  for  various  rea- 
sons”— greater  accumulation  of  capital,  and,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  steam  power,  the  proximity  of  their  water-power 
to  the  seaboard — “the  most  advantageous  situations  for 
them  existed.”  “Now  on  the  return  of  peace,”  he  says, 
“and  the  consequent  repeal  of  the  double  duties,  there 
was  necessarily  a reaction.”  British  manufactures, 
which  had  accumulated  during  Britain’s  wars  with  the 
United  States  and  with  Napoleon,  were  brought  over 
and  sold  to  the  people  at  prices  much  below  those  they 
had  been  paying. 


'The  following-  table  of  net  imports  will  show  the  degree  of  '‘pro- 
tection” : 


1805,  - . - 

1806,  _ . . . 

1807,  ...  - 

1808,  .... 

1809.  .... 

1810,  .... 

1811,  .... 

1812,  .... 

1813,  .... 

1814,  .... 

— Tariff  Compilation,  1884,  page  299. 


867,420,981 

69,126,764 

78,856,442 

43,992,586 

38,602,469 

61,008,705 

37,377,210 

68,534,873 

19,157,155 

12,819,831 


160 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


The  manufacturers,  therefore,  clamored  for  a restora- 
tion of  war  prices  through  a restoration  of  the  war 
tariff;  but  the  shipping  interests,  hawing  recovered  their 
old-time  lucrative  commerce,  opposed  an  increase  of 
rates:  and  this  opposition  was  voiced  by  Daniel  Webster 
as  late  as  1824,  during  the  discussion  of  the  so-called 
“American  system.”  But  the  real  or  pretended  dis- 
tress of  the  manufacturers  prevented  a “repeal  of  the 
double  duties;”  they  were  reduced  about  one-third;  and 
the  people  who  had  been’  compelled  to  pay  Si. 35  (the 
war  price)  for  an  article  worth  §1,  were  still  obliged  to 
pay  Si. 25  for  the  benefit  of  the  “distressed"  manufac- 
turers. 

So  that  New  England  and  Middle  State  manufactur- 
ers (there  were  few  of  the  latter)  we)'e  empowered  to 
sell  their  wares  at  foreign  prices  increased  by  at  least 
one-foui'th  of  those  prices  together  with  the  freight  rates 
on  “protected”  ships,  to  the  Southern  farmers  who  re- 
ceived foreign  prices  foj'  their  surplus  crops,  whether  sold 
at  home  or  abroad;  and  frojn  that  time  to  the  present 
have  competed  in  the  world's  markets  with  the  cheapest 
labor  of  Europe,  Asia,  Africa,  and  South  America. 

But  this  was  not  encouragement  enough ; and  their 
“distress”  induced  Congress  to  pass  the  act  of  1816. 
which  so  effectually  checked  imports  that  they  fell  from 
Sl2!),961-,931  in  1816  to  879,891,931  in  1817  and  an  aver- 
age of  867,001,957  during  the  succeeding  four  years. 

In  all  these  early  years  tariff  rates  were  professedly 
adjusted  so  as  to  encourage  certain  “infant  industries." 
and  they  were  intended  to  be  temporary.  * In  1824. 
however,  the  “American  system”  was  adopted,  designed 
not  only  to  support  the  “infants”,  but  to  encourage  the 
birth  of  more  “infants" ; and  when  the  act  of  1828.- 


See  Note  P.  ^ See  Note  Q. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


161 


still  more  sweeping  in  its  provisions, ' revealed  a purpose 
to  quarter  permanently  on  the  agricultural  class  the 
manufacturers  of  the  Northern  States,  the  struggle  for 
sectional  control  of  the  Grovemment  assumed  a threaten- 
ing aspect,  which  became  more  alarming  when  the  agri- 
culturists were  defied  by  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1832.  ^ 

About  this  time  the  denunciation  of  Southern  peo- 
ple by  the  abolitionists  of  the  North  became  violent,  and 
tended  to  weaken  the  bonds  of  the  Union;  and  they, 
together  with  the  “free-soilers”  and  the  manufacturers, 
began  to  devise  schemes  for  the  extension  of  Northern 
influence  into  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  with  the  ultimate  purpose  of  strengthening  the 
North  in  Federal  legislation.  And  in  a few  years  the 
contest  between  the  manufacturers  of  the  North  and 
the  agriculturists  of  the  South  became  a strife  between 
the  superior  enlightenment  and  humanity  of  the  North, 
and  what  Mr.  Thomas  B.  Reed  calls  the  “lower  civiliza- 
tion of  the  South  ” ! ^ 

The  effect  of  this  system  of  taxation  on  the  welfare 
of  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  up  to  1832  can  be 
approximately  estimated  from  statistics  of  exports  and 
imports. 

From  statistical  tables  in  the  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  (pp.322  et  seq. ) for  the  year  1858,  we 
learn  that  the  value  of  the  average  annual  exports  of 
domestic  produce  for  the  twelve  years  ending  June  30, 
1832,  was  $54, •129, 000,  of  which  the  South  furnished 
cotton  worth  $26,130,750,  tobacco  worth  $5,650,000, 
rice  worth  $2,019,000,  turpentine  worth  by  estimation 
(pp.  362-4)  $2,500,000,  breadstuffs  and  provisions  worth 

* See  Note  R. 

See  Note  S. 

®See  Congressional  Record,  Second  Session,  Fifty-third  Congress, 
page  2,033. 

11 


162 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


(at  least  half  of  the  exports)  §13,025,000,  aud  forest 
products  worth  (half  of  the  exports)  $3,000,000,  besides 
many  other  articles,  as  fish,  furs,  skins,  tallow,  butter, 
horses,  mules,  cattle,  beeswax,  soap,  etc.,  etc.'  But 
adopting  the  figures  about  which  there  can  be  no  rea- 
sonable doubt,  we  have  81  per  cent  as  the  South’s  con- 
tribution. 

Assuming,  then,  that  81  per  cent  represented  the 
South’s  share  (which  is  unfair  to  the  South,  since  a simi- 
lar calculation  for  1821  gives  91  per  cent  as  her  share* 
from  1789  to  1832,  let  us  ascertain  the  comparative  bur- 
den of  Federal  taxes  borne  by  her  during  that  period. 
We  can  make  the  calculation  in  two  ways : 

1.  Let  us  suppose  that  foreign  goods  were  received  in 
exchange  for  all  these  exports,  the  South  consuming  for- 
eign goods  and  the  North  consuming  largely  its  own 
manufactures.  The  average  population  of  the  Southern 
States,  including  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  for 
the  first  five  censuses  was  3,512.173,  aud  that  of  the 
Northern  States,  including  Delaware,  was  1,267,075. 

Dividing  $81,000,000  and  $16,000,000  (which  are  to 
each  other  as  81  per  ceut  is  to  16  per  cent),  we  have  the 
ratio  of  per  capita  tax  $23.91  in  the  South  and  $3.75  in 
the  North;  or,  in  other  words,  the  Southerner  paid 
nearly  six  and  one-third  times  as  much  as  the  North- 
erner towards  the  support  of  the  Federal  Government. 

2.  Let  us  take  into  the  calculation  the  foreign  articles 
imported  up  to  1832,  and  paid  for  with  the  profits  of  the 
coastwise  monopoly,  the  “protected”  foreign  commerce, 
and  the  slave-trade.  From  a table  on  page  305  of  the 

’ An  act  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  North  Carolina  in  1T84,  and 
amended  in  1805  and  subsequent  years,  provided  for  the  appoint 
ment  at  all  the  towns  and  landings  on  the  waters  of  the  State  cf  in- 
spectors of  the  following  articles  "exposed  to  sale  for  export" : Beef, 
pork,  rice,  tar,  pitch,  and  turpentine,  staves  and  heading,  fish,  flom-, 
butter,  flax-seed,  sawed  lumber,  and  shingles. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


163 


report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  1857-8,  we 
learn  that  the  exports  of  domestic  articles  up  to  and  in- 
cluding 1832  amounted  to  $1,817,912,615,  that  the  im- 
ports of  foreign  articles  amounted  to  $3, 355,482, 058, and 
that  the  exports  of  foreign  articles  amounted  to  $955,- 
326,630.  The  net  imports,  therefore,  were  $2,400, 155,- 
428,  or  $582,242,813  more  than  the  domestic  exports. 

Now  add  this  to  16  per  cent  of  the  domestic  exports 
and  we  have  $873,108,831  as  the  North’s  share,  and 
$1,527,046,596  as  the  South’s  share.  Suppose  again 
that  each  section  consumed  the  goods  received  for  its 
exports,  and  paid  the  duties.  Dividing  as  before  we 
find  that  the  South  consumed  $434.75  to  the  North’s 
$204.61  per  capita,  and  paid  taxes  iu  proportion  to  these 
amounts.  These  calculations,  however,  as  is  known  to 
everybody  at  all  acquainted  with  the  conditions  prevail- 
ing in  the  two  sections  of  the  Union,  are  grossly  unfair 
to  the  South;  the  84  per  cent  should,  perhaps,  have 
been  nearer  9(),  and  possibly  one-third  or  more  of  the 
extra  impoi  ts  were  consumed  in  the  South.  The  total 
amount  of  the  taxes  collected  on  these  imports  was 
$594,869,613,  and  for  the  privilege  of  consuming  them 
the  people  had  to  pay  an  average  of  $24.78  on  every 
$100  worth,  which  would  amount  to  $107.76,  per  capita, 
in  the  South,  and  $50.70  in  the  North.  But  since  the 
highest  rates  were  paid  on  the  goods  consumed  in  the 
South  (from  25  to  50  per  cent  on  woolen  goods,  from 
25  per  cent  to  5 cents  per  square  yard  on  cotton  goods, 
50  per  cent  on  straw  hats  and  Leghorn  bonuets,  etc.), 
it  might  not  be  an  exaggeration  to  put  the  Southerner’s 
tax  at  $130  and  the  Northerner’s  at  $38.  This  would 
show  a per  annum  tax  of  $2.95  in  the  South  and  $0.86 
in  the  North  for  each  human  being. 

Now  let  us  pause  and  inquire  what  was  done  with  this 
money.  According  to  tables  on  pages  1,547-50,  Vol.  2, 


164: 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


of  the  Statesman’s  Manual,  of  a total  of  disbursements 
from  the  Federal  treasury  of  §84-2,250,820  up  to  and  in- 
cluding the  year  ending  June  30,  1882 — a portion  of 
which  was  revenue  received  from  other  sources — §-108,- 
088,199,  or  nearly  one-half,  was  paid  as  principal  and 
interest  of  the  public  debt,  held,  as  is  elsewhere  shown, 
principally  in  the  Northern  States;  while  another  un- 
known amount  went  to  the  bounty-fed  fishermen  of 
New  England  and  the  Revolutionary  pensioners  of  the 
Northern  States. 

But  the  whole  story  has  not  been  told  yet.  After  the 
“fostering”  of  manufactures  had  strengthened  so  many 
“infants”  and  caused  the  birth  of  many  more,  the  South- 
ern market  began  to  be  supplied  svdth  “protected"  mer- 
chandise from  the  North,  displacing  foreign  products  to 
some  extent,  and  this  merchandise  was  sold  in  the  South 
at  about  the  same  price  the  people  had  been  paying  for 
similar  goods  from  abroad,  the  extra  2-1.78  per  cent 
going  into  the  pockets  of  the  manufacturers.  Indeed, 
during  the  years  after  1816,  the  profit  was  much  larger, 
being  34-. 9 per  cent  in  the  years  1825-'6.' 

' It  is  denied  by  the  protectionists  that  domestic  manufacturers 
charge  the  foreign  price  plus  the  tax  for  similar  articles  they  pro- 
duce; but  such  a denial  is  intended  to  impose  on  the  ignorant.  Up 
to  1832  the  protected  manufacturers  were  not  able  to  supply  the 
"home  market’';  a great  many  foreign  articles  were  imported:  and 
the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  whether  a bolt  of  Massachu.setts 
homespun  sold  for  less  than  a bolt  of  simlar  home.spun  imported 
from  Europe.  If  the  price  of  the  foreign  bolt  was  So,  including  S2 
of  tax,  the  domestic  bolt  sold  for  So,  S2  of  it  going  as  a bonus  into 
the  pocket  of  the  manufacturer. 

And  he  who  makes  this  denial  must  explain  the  statistics  of  the 
census  of  1850 — three  years  after  Mr.  Blaine’s  "free-trade”  tariff  was 
adopted.  In  1849  there  was  S52T,209,193  invested  in  manufacturing 
and  other  protected  industries,  not  including  those  whose  products 
were  not  woi’th  over  five  hundred  dollars;  the  raw  material  (includ- 
ing fuel)  consumed  was  worth  So54,65o.038 : the  wages,  salaries,  etc.. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


165 


Truly,  therefore,  did  Senator  Benton  say  in  1828, 
while  discussing  the  “bill  of  abominations”  ; “Wealth  has 
fled  from  the  South  and  settled  in  the  regions  north  of 
the  Potomac,  and  this  in  the  midst  of  the  fact  that  the 
South  in  four  staples  alone,  in  cotton,  tobacco,  rice,  and 
indigo  (while  indigo  was  one  of  its  staples),  has  expoi  ted 
produce  since  the  devolution  to  the  value  of  S800,000,- 
000,  and  the  North  has  exported  comparatively  nothing.  ” 
And  truly  did  the  South  Carolina  delegation  say  in 
their  address  to  their  constituents  after  the  passage 
of  the  tariff  act  of  1832:  “That  in  this  manner  the  bur- 
den of  supporting  the  Government  was  thrown  exclu- 
sively on  the  Southern  States,  and  the  other  States 
gained  more  than  they  lost  by  the  operations  of  the 
revenue  system.  ” ' 

After  these  forty-four  years  of  injustice  came  the 
compromise  tariff  of  March  3,  1833,  which  provided  for 
a gradual  reduction  of  the  rates  down  to  20  per  cent  in 
1842.  But  even  under  that,  when  the  rates  had  reached 
the  lov/est  point, ^ domestic  manufacturers  were  enabled 
to  charge  foreign  prices  increased  by  ocean  freights  and 
tariff  rates  little  less  burdensome  than  before,  since  the 
principal  reductions  were  on  articles  not  produced  in  the 
United  States.  For  example,  the  rate  was  reduced  from 
25  to  21^  per  cent  on  blankets,  brass  wire,  buttons,  car- 

amounted  to  §229,736,377;  and  the  products  were  valued  at  $1,013,- 
336,463.  This  was  a gain  of  more  than  43  per  cent  on  the  capital  in- 
vested.— Lippincott’s  Gazetteer  (18.57),  Article  United  States. 

He  must  also  account  for  the  heavy  gains  of  the  woolen  and  cot 
ton  manufacturers  in  1859.  According  to  the  census  of  1860,  the 
“free-trade  tariff”  of  1857  being  in  force,  woolen  manufacturers 
realized  48  per  cent  on  the  capital  invested,  and  the  cotton  manu- 
facturers realized  more  than  34  per  cent. — Eleventh  Census,  Manu- 
facturing Industries,  Part  III,  page  3. 

' Statesman’s  Manual,  Volume  II,  page  996. 

^ It  was  tinkered  on  twice  in  the  interval. 


166 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


pets,  clocks,  copper  vessels,  cotton  goods,  cutlery,  manu- 
factures of  flax,  and  woolen  or  worsted  hosiery;  from 
30  to  23  per  cent  on  adzes,  axes,  bonnets,  books  (knowl- 
edge), bridles  and  bridle  bits,  firearms,  harness,  draw- 
ing-knives, hatchets,  wool  hats,  and  straw  hats ; and  on 
ready-made  clothing  from  50  to  29  per  cent.  On  many 
articles  the  rate  was  raised,  becauseof  the  “distress"  of 
the  manufacturers  or  of  the  treasury. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  manufacturers  were  enabled  to 
levy  tribute  on  other  classes  to  the  extent  of  at  least 
one- fifth  of  the  value  of  their  goods  and  wares,  and  dur- 
ing these  years  and  afterwards  they  were  gradually  in- 
creasing the  outiDut  of  their  factories  and  driving  foreign 
goods  out  of  their  “home  market.”  So  that  the  South- 
ern farmer  who  sold  SI  worth  of  cotton,  or  rice,  or  to- 
bacco for  Si,  was  compelled  bylaw  to  pay  at  least  Si. 20 
for  Si  worth  of  goods  made  in  the  Northern  States;  and 
perhaps  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  every  hundred  he 
did  not  see  the  20  cents  “wrapped  up”  in  the  price. 

After  the  close  of  the  compromise  period,  the  protec- 
tionists having  promised  that  the  low  rates  reached 
should  remain  permanent,  they  were  encouraged  by  in- 
tervening events  to  violate  their  promise  and  restore  in 
1842  all  the  old  high  rates  (in  some  instances  increasing 
them),  and  to  add  over  260  articles  to  the  dutiable  list  at 
very  high  rates.  For  example,  on  cotton  bagging  they 
levied  4 cents  per  square  yard,  on  cotton  cloth  30  per 
cent,  on  flannels  (other  than  cotton)  14  cents  per  square 
yard,  on  salt  8 cents  per  bushel,  on  leather  shoes  30 
cents  a pair,  and  on  woolen  goods  40  per  cent;  and  they 
provided  for  the  birth  of  more  “infants  ” by  remov- 
ing from  the  free  list  axle-trees  at  4 cents  per  pound, 
bagging  for  grain  at  5 cents  per  square  yard,  women's 
double -soled  pumps  at  40  cents  per  pair,  leather  bootees 
for  women  and  children  at  50  cents  per  pair,  cut-glass 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


167 


candle-sticks  at  45  cents  per  pound,  trace  chains  at  4 cents 
per  pound,  and  bluestone  (for  soaking  seed  wheat)  at  4 
cents  per  pound,  etc.,  etc. 

But  even  this  act,  drastic  as  it  was,  fell  far  below  the 
hopes  and  purposes  of  the  protectionists;  it  was  the 
third  tariff  bill  passed  at  the  same  session.  President 
Tyler  having  vetoed  the  other  two. 

Luckily  for  the  country,  however,  the  agitation  of 
the  tariff  question  was  bearing  fruit ; the  schoolmaster 
was  abroad  in  the  land,  and  the  people  were  beginning 
to  analyze  prices  and  find  what  was  ‘ ‘ wrapped  up  ” in 
them.  And  in  1844  they  turned  down  the  protection- 
ists. and  prepared  the  way  for  the  reductions  in  the  acts 
of  1846'  and  1857. 

Under  the  operation  of  these  “free-trade”  tariffs,  as 
Mr.  Blaine  called  them,  there  was  more  general  pros- 
perity and  contentment  than  the  people  had  ever  en- 
joyed before,  as  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Blaine  in  his  Twenty 
Years  of  Congress,  though  he  gives  much  of  the  credit 
to  other  causes.  But  all  this  prosperity,  so  far  as  it 
came  to  the  agricultural  class,  can  fairly  be  compared 
to  the  relief  experienced  by  a traveler  who,  having  been 
compelled  to  carry  on  his  shoulders  two  heavy  rails,  is 
permitted  to  throw  down  one  of  them.  The  manufac- 
turer could  still  “wrap  up”  24  cents  in  every  $1.24 
worth  of  firearms;  hand-made  clothing  for  men,  women 
and  children;  willow  baskets;  straw,  chip,  and  grass 
bonnets;  brass  manufactures;  plain  chinaware;  clocks; 
combs  for  the  hair;  suspenders;  stockings;  calico  and 
bleached  homespun ; cutlery  of  all  kinds;  earthenware 
of  all  kinds;  straw  hats;  hoop  iron;  castings,  vessels, 
etc.;  leather  shoes;  manufactures  of  steel;  iron  bars, 
bolts,  and  rods,  etc.  He  could  “wrap  up”  19  cents  in 

^This  passed  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  Vice-President 
Dallas. 


168 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE’  NORTH. 


every  ^1.19  worth  of  cotton  bagging;  buttons;  thread; 
calomel;  flannels;  and  woolen  or  worsted  yarns.  He 
could  “wrap  up”  15  cents  in  every  §1.15  worth  of  cop- 
per bolts,  nails,  spikes,  etc. ; linen  goods ; window 
glass;  grain  bags;  gunpowder;  wool  hats;  laces;  shot: 
steel;  and  blankets.  In  short,  fully  one-sixth  of  the 
wholesale  prices  of  all  his  goods  and  wares  was  un- 
earned profit,  paid  to  him  by  the  command  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Union. ' 

The  resulting  damage  inflicted  by  this  system  on  the 
agricultural  class  can  be  inferred  from  statistics  fur- 
nished by  the  Treasury  Department.  According  to  tables 
on  pages  315-6  of  the  report  for  1857-’8,  on  page  73  of 
the  Statistical  Abstract  for  1891,  and  on  page  88  of  the 
Agricultural  Deport  for  1873,  the  exports  of  domestic 
produce  for  the  forty-five  years,  beginning  with  1826 
and  ending  with  1860,  amounted  to  §4,598,567,74:2.  of 
which  the  agriculturists  furnished  §4,219,204,883,  or 
nearly  ninety -two  per  cent,  the  share  of  other  producers 
being  8.24  per  cent.  These  agricultural  products  were 
sold  at  “pauper  labor”  prices  in  foreigji  countries,  and 
all  the  surplus  not  exported  sold  in  the  United  States 
at  “pauper  labor”  prices  diminished  by  the  cost  of  trans- 
portation to  foreign  countries.  And  during  all  these 
years  the  manufacturers  were  extending  their  opera- 
tions so  as  to  supply  the  demands  of  the  “home  mar- 
ket, ” at  prices  ranging  from  20  to  50  per  cent  above 
“pauper  labor”  prices.  The  average  was  23.5  per  cent, 
and  the  agriculturists  contributed  to  the  treasury  dur- 

^’When,  after  the  wars  with  Napoleon,  the  British  Parliament 
levied  such  a tax  on  foreign  corn  as  to  compel  the  people  to  pay 
about  six  cents  for  a 3-cent  loaf  of  bread,  the  London  black- 
smith who  complained  at  that  form  of  robbery,  was  told  that  his 
complaint  was  unfounded,  because  he  was  not  obliged  to  buy  bread ; 
and  that  it  was  his  own  fault  if  he  allowed  himself  to  be  robbed  for 
the  benefit  of  the  British  landlord. 


THE  MOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


169 


ing  this  period  ^992,000,000,  and  perhaps  nearly  as 
much  to  Northern  manufacturers,  ’ while  the  people  in 
the  manufacturing  sections,  consuming  the  products  of 
their  own  factories,  were  relieved  from  all  taxes  except 
those  collected  on  such  articles  as  were  not  produced  in 
the  United  States,  which,  if  not  placed  on  the  free  list, 
were  usually  taxed  at  a low  rate. 

This  was  the  direct  damage.  Another  wrong  in- 
flicted on  the  agricultural  class  was  perhaps  more  com- 
pletely hidden  from  view  than  the  enhancement  of 
prices,  but  it  was  none  the  less  shameful.  It  was  the 
swindling  of  the  people  by  imposing  on  them  with  what 
we  now  call  shodd}^  goods — woolen  cloth  composed  of 
from  50  to  70  per  cent  of  cotton  and  old  woolen  rags, 
white  lead  containing  from  five  to  twenty  per  cent  of 
barytes,  tin  plate  covered  with  a mixture  composed 
largely  of  lead,  etc.,  etc.  In  an  unrestricted  market 
frauds  like  these  could  never  escape  detection  and  con- 
demnation. 

Such  was  the  “fire  ” the  Southern  people  fell  into 
when  they  jumped  out  of  the  British  “frying  pan”  in 
1776. 

It  would  be  unfair  to  the  protectionists  to  deny  that 
there  was  ever  any  plausible  excuse  for  their  system. 

To  a tariff  tax  per  se,  there  can  be  no  objection.  In 
the  early  days  when  everybody  consumed  imported 
goods,  such  a tax  honestly  and  Constitutionally  ex- 
pended, worked  no  injustice  to  any  class  or  section.  It 
was  after  the  tariff  began  to  be  adjusted  for  other  and 

1 This  was  taking  from  the  farmer  833.50  out  of  every  §100  of  his 
produce  exported  to  foreign  countries,  while  the  manufacturer  in 
the  United  States  was  enabled  by  the  taxing  system  to  take  as  much 
out  of  every  §100  worth  of  farm  products  sold  in  the  United  States. 
Add  to  this  the  burden  laid  on  his  shoulders  by  the  protected  ship 
pers,  and  the  sum  left  him  out  of  each  §100  he  had  made  was  not 
much  over  seventy  dollars. 


170 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


unauthorized  purposes  that  excuses  were  felt  to  be  nec- 
essary. 

1.  One  excuse  is  that  if  foreign  goods  were  permitted 
to  come  in  free  of  tax,  British  manufacturers  would 
flood  our  markets  with  “pauper-made”  products,  drive 
out  the  “home”  manufacturer  and  then  advance  prices 
to  suit  themselves.  This  was  invented  to  impose  on  the 
ignorant  who  do  not  know  that  a hat  or  a yard  of  cloth 
can  be  made  as  cheaply  in  the  United  States  as  in  Eng- 
land, that  French,  German.  Belgian,  Dutch,  and  other 
European  manufacturers  would  contend  ’s\uth  Great 
Britain  for  our  trade,  and  that  ocean  freights  impose  a 
considerable  restriction  on  the  foreigner. 

2.  Another  excuse  is  that  by  protection,  and  not  with- 
out it,  the  manufacturers  would  furnish  the  farmers 
with  a “home  market”  for  the  products  of  their  farms. 

This  might  have  had  some  force  in  it;  but  the  free 
homesteads  and  other  inducements  to  build  up  the  West 
so  as  to  “multiply,  develop,  and  strengthen  the  Xorth,  ” 
have  had  the  effect  of  supplying  the  Eastern  manufac- 
tu rers  with  cheap  farm  products,  of  destroying  the  ‘ ‘ home 
market”  for  Southern  corn,  wheat,  beef,  and  pork,  and 
of  driving  many  of  the  Eastern  farmers  who  had  been 
dupes  of  this  “home  market”  argument  into  other  occu- 
pations or  into  the  West. 

3.  The  competition  among  manufacturers  which  pro- 
tection alone,  it  was  alleged,  could  bring  about,  would 
cause  an  ultimate  reduction  of  prices  to  that  general 
level  which  determines  the  profits  of  the  producers  of 
cotton,  breadstuffs,  provisions,  wool,  and  other  raw  ma- 
terials. This,  too,  was  invented  to  impose  on  the  igno- 
rant. More  than  a century  of  this  competition  has 
failed  to  reduce  prices  to  the  promised  level,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  the  refusal  of  onr  manufacturers  to  compete 
in  the  markets  of  the  world.  Instead  of  this  they  “shut 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


171 


down”  when  the  “home  market”  appears  to  be  glut- 
ted, and  begin  to  devise  schemes  to  have  the  Constitu- 
tion amended  so  that  they  can  regulate  the  hours  of 
labor  in  competing  establishments  in  the  Southern 
States. 

And  it  is  the  height  of  folly  to  suppose  that  the  States 
conferred  upon  Congress  the  power  to  fleece  about  five 
generations  of  agriculturists  in  order  that  succeeding 
generations  might  buy  cheap  goods. 

4.  Another  excuse  was  fairly  set  forth  in  a speech  in 
the  Senate  August  1,  1892,  by  Senator  Hawley  of  Con- 
necticut. The  substance  of  it  was  that  without  protec- 
tion it  would  be  impossible  to  pay  “American  wages,” 
and  that  the  opponents  of  protection  were  manifesting 
a cruel  disregard  of  “the  mourning  of  labor.”'  This 
“labor”  means  that  employed  in  factories,  and  excludes 
the  white  or  black  man  who  works  in  the  cotton  fields 
of  the  South  for  60  cents  per  day;  and  Senator  Hawley 
insists  that  these  people  shall  be  compelled  by  act  of 
Congress  to  contribute  a portion  of  their  60  cents  to 
swell  the  wages  of  the  factory  employee  to  12.50  per 
day.  ^ 

5.  Another  excuse  for  protection  is  that  “the  for- 
eigner pays  the  tax,  ’ ’ and  that  if  Congress  were  to  re- 
move, say,  the  eleven  cents  now  imposed  on  every  pound 
of  the  cheapest  wool  imported,  it  would  be  equivalent 
to  donating  this  tax  to  the  foreign  wool  grower.  This 

' The  pretense  that  laboring  men  are  the  chief  beneficiaries  of  pro- 
tection is  brought  into  discredit  by  the  statement  made  by  a Massa- 
chusetts “woolen  workingman”  to  the  Senate  Finance  Committee 
in  1894.  The  factory  in  which  he  worked  produced  daily  81,435 
worth  of  woolen  goods,  while  the  wages  paid  laer  day  was  §172.50, 
or  12  per  cent  of  the  value  of  the  goods. — Senate  Reports.  Second 
Session,  Fifty-third  Congress,  Volume  XIII,  page  87. 

'^Senate  Report,  986,  Part  III,  First  Session,  Fifty-second  Con- 
gress, pages  1,902-2,038. 


172  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

excuse  for  protection  was  advanced  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  no  longer  ago  than  January  18,  1898.  by 
Senator  Pettigrew,  of  South  Dakota,  who  interrupted 
Senator  Morgan’s  Hawaiian  annexation  speech  with  this 
sage  question:  “Does  the  Senator  from  Alabama  mean 
to  say  that  the  Hawaiian  Government  would  voluntarily 
seek  the  protection  of  some  other  power,  and  thus  forego 
the  great  advantage  those  islands  now  enjoy  in  their 
reciprocity  arrangements  with  the  United  States  which 
results  in  our  remitting  to  them  annually  not  less  than 
$6,000,000  ? ” ‘ 

6.  Another  excuse  is  that  there  is  a lack  of  patriotism 
in  the  Southern  man  who  buys  foreign  goods  in  prefer- 
ence to  “home-made”  goods  from  New  England;  and 
that  therefore  a tax  laid  on  him  is  a righteous  penalty. 

Which  being  interpreted  means,  as  Dr.  Johnson  said, 
that  “patriotism  is  the  last  refuge  of  a scoundrel." 

7.  Another  excuse  for  protection — not  the  protection 
we  have  been  laboring  under  for  over  thirty  years,  hut 
the  Dingley  tariff — was  given  to  the  country  on  June 
15,  1898  (about  three  months  before  cotton  fell  to  IJ 
cents  per  pound  on  North  Carolina  farms),  by  Seoator 
Pritchard  of  North  Carolina.  It  is  that  the  Dingley 
tariff  has  produced  a prodigious  balance  of  trade  in  favor 
of  the  United  States  by  shortening  the  wheat  crop  of 
foreign  countries  and  causing  an  extraordinary  demand 
abroad  for  the  wheat  of  the  farmers  of  the  Western 
States.  “As  a result,”  he  said,  “of  the  happy  concur- 
rence of  conditions” — “the  administration  of  the  gov- 
ernment by  the  great  party  of  Lincoln,  Grant,  and  Mc- 
Kinley”— “the  volume  of  cash  sent  over  to  us  from  Eu- 
rope breaks  all  previous  records.’’  It  has  also  advanced 
the  prices  of  farm  products  “from  15  to  lu  per  cent." 


Press  Dispatch. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


173 


Horses  are  75  per  cent  higher  than  in  1897,  and  few 
to  be  had;  poultry  150  per  cent  above  last  year  * * * 
tobacco  is  higher  than  in  four  years.”  ‘ 

8.  Another  excuse  is  that  under  “protection,  ’ ’ and  not 
without  it,  everything  the  people  of  these  States  need 
will  be  produced  “at  home.”  This  is  addressed  to  that 
narrow  selfishness  which  in  some  quarters  is  mistaken 
for  “patriotism” ; and  it  presumes  dense  ignorance  in 
the  persons  addressed.  It  utterly  ignores  the  universal 
disposition  to  refuse  to  buy  from  a man  who  refuses  to 
buy  from  others;  and  it  sends  the  farmer  out  into  an 
unwilling  world  in  search  of  markets  for  his  cotton, 
wheat,  tobacco,  etc.,  and  brings  him  back  “home”  to 
spend  his  reduced  income  in  a “protected”  market. 

9.  And  last,  but  not  least,  was  the  justification  of 
ante-bellum  protection  which  appears  in  a speech  of 
Hon.  J.  H.  Walker  of  Massachusetts,  commented  on  in 
the  16th  chapter  (Slavery)  of  this  volume.  It  is  that 
since  the  slave-holder  paid  no  “wages,”  he  was  under 
some  sort  of  moral  obligation  to  divide  his  profits  with 
the  Northern  manufacturers  who  were  obliged  to  pay 
wages. 

' Press  Dispatch. 

Note  0. 

That  there  may  be  no  suspicion  of  exaggeration  in  the  statement 
made  in  the  chapter  on  the  tariff,  the  following  table  has  been  con- 
structed from  data  in  Senate  Rei^ort  No  407,  Second  Session,  Fifty- 
third  Congress.  It  shows  the  value  of  goods  imported  during  the 
year  ending  June  30,  1893,  and  the  tax  i^aid  at  the  custom- houses, 
and  from  it  these  selections  have  been  made : 


Articles. 

Foreign  Price. 

Tax. 

Alum,  . - . . 

173,806.17 

$27,437.52 

Morphine, 

25,035.00 

11,790.00 

Castor  oil. 

228.00 

228.80 

Linseed  oil. 

2,491.00 

2,369.91 

White  lead, 

154.25 

120.18 

Bicarbonate  of  soda. 

19,735.63 

11,933.80 

174 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Articles. 

Foreign  Price. 

Tax. 

Plain  white  chinaware, 

§2,110,856.05 

§1,160,970.83 

Glass  buttons, 

51,022.31 

30,613.39 

Cheaxrest  window  glass. 

370,140.49 

17.5,704.99 

Spectacles, 

33,258.00 

19,9.54.80 

Tin  xilate. 

16,691,765.19 

13,090,693.75 

Razors, 

268,148.22 

177,450.95 

Pen  and  pocket  knives 

911,146.03 

829,487.. 54 

Shot  guns. 

281,657.30 

179,472.03 

Cotton  thread,  yai’n,  etc  , 

857,532.60 

438.397.81 

Cellars  and  cuffs. 

93,705.09 

64.223.43 

Shirts,  etc.,  jiart  linen. 

38,738.92 

21.306.40 

Laces,  edgings,  etc.,  - 

15,378.898.64 

9,227,339.21 

Cotton  bagging, 

Woolen  or  wor.sted  cloth- 

35,932.00 

11.683.60 

Lowest  grade. 

13  097.00 

21.360.04 

Second  grade. 

137,569.00 

184,796.00 

H ighest  grade. 

12,666,2.56.30 

12,603.401.74 

Firecrackers,  - 

335,478.60 

494,228.07 

Boots  and  shoes. 

95,622.42 

23,90.5.62 

Lead  pencils,  - 

81.509.00 

43.749.90 

Cotton  ties. 

56,368.00 

25,200.94 

Salt  in  bulk. 

176,320.94 

145,1.58.63 

Blankets  of  all  kinds. 

.5,767.00 

4,870.31 

Wool  hats  of  all  kinds. 
Women  and  children’s  dress 

21,919.01 

goods,  part 

19,447.21 

wool. 

8,180,127.21 

8,140.11.3.20 

Trace  and  other  chains, 

64,8.34.62 

31,336.40 

These  tases  were  levied  not  for  revenue  but  for  “protection,"  and 
everybody  must  be  his  own  judge  whether  similar  goods  produced 
in  the  United  States  sold  for  less  than  the  foreign  price  with  the 
tax  added.  No  sane  man  would  buy  these  goods  abroad  and  pay 
the  tax,  if  he  could  buy  them  cheaper  in  the  United  States.  And  it 
may  be  added  that,  if  the  women  of  the  country  had  been  required, 
after  i^aying  §8.18  for  dress  goods,  to  hand  over  to  a Federal  tax 
gatherer  §8.14,  the  reputations  of  certain  distinguished  gentlemen 
would  have  suffered.  And  it  is  quite  probable  that  they  would 
have  diappeared  altogether,  if  the  poor  people  who  paid  §13.09  for 
woolen  goods  to  clothe  their  families  had  been  obliged  to  pay  §21.36 
as  a tax  to  a Federal  tax  gatherer  for  the  piivilege  of  clotliing  their 
families.  But  the  §21.36  was  “wrapped  up”  in  the  §34.45  the  mer- 
chant charged  for  the  goods,  and  the  xroor  people  didn't  see  it. 
And  the  authors  of  this  robbery  are  statesmen  and  patriots! 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


175 


Note  P. 

The  protective  features  of  the  tariff  act  of  April  27,  1816,  are  con- 
stantly resurrected  in  Congress  to  confound  Southern  free  traders 
and  low-tariff  advocates,  l)ecause  it  was  supported  by  Mr.  Calhoun. 
But  a careful  reading  of  it  will  confound  the  protectionists ; all  its 
protective  rates  were  to  be  limited  to  three  years,  so  as  to  give  the 
“infants”  time  to  exercise  their  legs  and  learn  to  stand  alone.  For 
example,  it  contained  these  provisions; 

“Un  cotton  manufactures  of  all  descriptions  * - * as  follows, 

viz:  For  three  years  next  ensuing  the  30th  day  of  June  next,  a duty 
of  25  per  centum  ad  valorem ; and  after  expiration  of  the  three  years 
aforesaid  a duty  of  20  per  centum  ad  valorem,”  etc. ; and 

“On  all  woclen  manufactures  cf  all  descriptions,  exceiff  blankets, 
rags,  and  worsted  stuff  or  goods”  (all  of  which  were  left  on  the  free 
list),  “shall  be  levied,  collected,  and  paid  from  and  after  the  30th  day 
of  June  next,  until  the  30th  day  of  June,  1819,  25  per  centum  ad  valo- 
rem; and  after  that  day  20  per  centum  on  the  said  articles.” 

Indeed,  some  of  the  most  grinding  rates  in  the  act  of  1824  were  to 
be  temporary  in  their  operation ; but  experience  soon  satisfied  f he 
Congress  f haf  there  was  no  hope  of  the  adolescence  of  the  “infants.” 
There  are  “infants”  now  on  the  protected  roll  which  are  more  than 
a century  old. 

Mr.  Calhoun’s  avowed  object  in  favoring  a three-years’  encourage- 
ment of  manufactures  was  to  secure  the  production  in  the  United 
States  of  such  articles  as  were  sorely  needed  in  the  War  of  1812;  and 
pro  tmito,  in  his  view,  it  was  a war  measure. 

But  even  this  temporary  pi’otection  did  not  receive  the  supi^ort 
from  the  South  which  protectionists  would  have  us  to  believe  it  did. 
The  votes  of  the  following  States  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
were  as  in  this  table; 


Virginia, 

North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina, 
Georgia, 


Yeas.  Nays. 
7 13 

0 11 

4 3 

3 3 


14  30 


Note  Q,. 

The  woolen  manufacturers,  not  satisfied  with  the  privilege  of  ad- 
ding twenty-five  cents  to  every  dollar’s  worth  of  their  products,  in- 
duced their  friends  in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  pass  a bill  in 
February,  1827,  "imimsing  additional  duties  on  imported  woolen 
goods,”  but  it  was  rejected  in  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote  of 
Vice-President  Calhoun.  Thereupon  steps  were  taken  by  the  woolen 


176 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


manufacturers  to  unite  in  a convention  at  Harrisburg  representa- 
tives of  all  the  industries  which  were  anxious  to  have  their  privuleges 
enlarged.  They  were  successful;  the  convention  was  held;  and  by 
united  action  they  secured  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1828.  ‘ 

Note  R. 

Many  of  the  rates  in  this  tariff  were  dictated  by  the  manufactur- 
ers, as  is  evident  from  the  following  passage  in  the  report  of  the 
committee  which  framed  the  bi  1.  They  examined  thirty  witnesses, 
manufacturers  and  other  interested  parties,  and  then  made  this  con 
fession;  Indeed,  many  of  the  questions  put  to  the  witnesses  will 
afford  abundant  evidence  that  the  committee  had  not  sufficient 
practical  knowledge  upon  the  subjects  before  them  to  enable  them 
to  make  a series  of  interrogations,  the  answers  to  which  would  place 
the  testimony  taken  in  the  clearest  light.  * * * None  hut  a per- 
.son  intimately  acquainted  with  the  various  operations  could  have 
drawn  out  a series  of  questions  upon  the  subject,  susceptible  of  clear 
and  intelligible  answers. 

For  example,  not  satisfied  with  the  privilege  of  selling  §1  worth  of 
woolen  goods  for  81.30,  they  had  the  rate  so  changed  that  they 
could  sell  at  81.40  and  81.45,  according  to  quality. 

Note  S. 

One  of  the  strongest  reasons  given  by  the  committee  which  framed 
the  tariff  bill  of  1828  for  the  protection  of  the  woolen  manufacturers 
\vas  as  follows: 

“That  these  depres,sions  (in  prices)  are  owing,  in  a very  great  de- 
gree, to  the  excessive  and  irregular  importations  of  foreign  woolen 
goods  into  our  markets:  thus  causing  a fluctuation  in,  and  an  un- 
certainty of  price  for  those  goods,  more  injurious  to  the  American 
manufacturer  than  even  the  depression  of  price  which  these  im- 
portations produce.”® 

Here  was  an  act  passed  to  insure  certainty  of  prices  to  the  woolen 
manufacturers,  while  the  producer  of  cotton  was  unable  to  adjust 
his  business  to  any  certainty^  of  price.  His  debts,  his  taxes,  and  the 
prices  of  his  clothing,  hats,  shoes,  salt,  farming  utensils,  etc.,  did 
not  vary : but  the  price  of  his  cotton  was  as  uncertain  as  the  weather. 
In  1821  the  Liverpool  price  of  cotton  was  19  cents,  and  in  1831  it  was 
12  cents  (counting  a pennj'  as  equal  to  two  cents).  And  during  this 
period  the  price  of  a bushel  of  wheat  (at  Albany  and  Troy,  N.  Y.) 
varied  between  six  and  fourteen  shillings.  ■* 

‘ See  Statesman’s  Manual,  Vol.  I,  pages  662-63. 

^See  Taylor’s  Universal  History  of  the  United  States,  page  437. 

® Taydor,  page  438. 

‘See  Alden’s  Cyclopcedia,  Article  Cotton,  and  Report  of  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  (Agriculture)  for  1853,  jrages  142-43. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


177 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE  PERSONAL  PHASE  OF  THE  TARIFF  QUESTION — JACKSON 
VS.  CALHOUN;  AND  THE  POWERS  OP  CONGRESS — JACKSON 
AND  WEBSTER  VS.  CALHOUN  AND  HAYNE. 

There  seems  t o have  heeii  no  serious  opposition  in  early 
days  to  extending  “protection” — by  what  Constitutional 
authority  it  is  not  clear — to  certain  manufactures  for 
limited  times. ' The  first  tariff  proclaimed  “protection” 
as  one  of  its  objects,  though  its  7^  per  cent  would  now 
be  regarded  as  a “free-trade  ” rate. 

After  the  War  of  1812  the  manufacturers  of  the  North- 
ern States,  who  had  been  powerfully  encouraged  by  the 
disturbances  of  commerce  during  and  preceding  the  war, 
clamored  for  a tariff  which  would  ensure  to  them  a con- 
tinuance of  war  prices.  They  were  gratified  for  three 
years,  and  before  the  three  years  were  ended  they  se- 
cured an  extension  of  their  privileges  for  seven  years. 

'■  Designed  solely  as  a war  measure  it  was.  perhaps,  Constitutional ; 
Congress  could  establish  gun  shops,  powder  mills,  etc.,  if  they  were 
needed,  or  it  could  “ encourage  ” their  establishment.  To  either 
course  there  could  have  been  no  Constitutional  objection,  if  nothing 
but  the  main  object  could  have  been  kept  in  view. 

“As  a general  rule,”  said  President  Washington  in  his  annual  ad- 
dress of  December  7,  1796,  “manufactures  on  the  public  account  are 
inexpedient;  but  where  the  state  of  things  in  a country  leaves  little 
hope  that  certain  branches  of  manufacture  will,  for  a great  length 
of  time,  obtain,  when  these  are  of  a nature  essential  to  furnishing 
and  equipping  of  the  public  force  in  time  of  war,  are  not  establish- 
ments for  procuring  them  on  public  account,  to  the  extent  of  the 
ordinary  demand  for  the  public  service,  recommended  by  strong 
considerations  * * * as  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  ? ” 

But  Congress  disregarded  the  implied  recommendation;  increased 
tariff  rates  on  clothing,  cordage,  cotton  goods,  gunpowder,  iron 
manufactures,  pewter  plates  and  dishes,  saddles,  sail  cloth,  salt,  and 
some  other  articles;  and  continued  the  10  jjer  cent  discrimination 
against  foreign  ships. 


12 


178 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


About  this  time  it  began  to  dawn  on  the  minds  of 
some  that  the  purpose  of  the  manufacturers  was  to  quar- 
ter themselves  permanently  on  the  agricultural  and  other 
classes  of  the  people.  Hence  opposition  sprang  up,  and 
the  Constitutional  powers  of  Congress  were  called  in 
question.  It  was  denied  that  the  Federal  Government 
was  organized  for  the  purpose  of  meddling  with  the 
occupations  of  the  people,  or  of  taxing  one  class  of  the 
people  for  the  enrichment  of  another. 

The  first  serious  opposition  to  protection  on  this  ground 
appeared  in  Congress  when  Mr.  Clay’s  “American  sys- 
tem” was  introduced  in  1821;  but  unfortunately  that 
was  the  year  w^hen  the  field  was  full  of  candidates  for 
the  Presidency,  and  personal  ambition  obscured  the  path 
of  duty.  Among  those  who  voted  for  the  “American 
system,”  and  who  afterwards  were  more  or  less  identi- 
fied with  the  tariff  contest,  was  Andrew  Jackson,  a 
Senator  from  Tennessee,  and  a prominent  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  The  bill  was  passed  by  four  majority 
in  the  Senate,  and  five  in  the  House,  the  division  being 
mainly  between  the  South  on  one  side,  and  the  North 
on  the  other. 

Naturally  the  strife  went  from  the  halls  of  Congress 
into  the  States.  On  the  21:th  of  December,  1827.  the 
Legislature  of  Georgia  denounced  the  tariff  act  of  1824- 
as  unconstitutional,  and  thieatened  resistance  to  its 
execution  in  that  State.  About  the  same  time  the  Leg- 
islature of  South  Carolina  instituted  a committee  to  in- 
quire into  the  powmrs  of  the  Federal  Government,  in 
reference  to  the  tariff  and  also  in  reference  to  internal 
improvements,  schemes  for  which  were  then  beginning 
to  be  devised  for  the  purpose,  in  part,  of  necessitating 
high  taxes.  The  report  of  the  committee,  which  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  both  houses  December,  1827.  re- 
cited the  conditions  on  which  the  States  had  entered 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


179 


into  the  Union;  and  declared  that  whenever  the  terms 
of  the  compact  were  violated,  it  was  the  right  of  the 
people  and  of  their  State  Legislature  to  remonstrate, 
etc. ; denied  the  right  of  Congress  to  appropriate  the 
public  money  for  the  construction  of  roads,  canals,  etc., 
within  the  States ; denounced  the  tariff  act  of  1821- as 
unconstitutional;  and  asserted  that  whenever  “the  Con- 
stitution was  violated  in  spirit,  and  not  literally,  there 
was  a peculiar  propriety  in  the  State  Legislature’s  un- 
dertaking to  decide  for  itself,  inasmuch  as  the  Constitu- 
tion had  not  provided  any  remedy.” 

These  remonstrances  against  protective  tariffs  and 
misappropriations  of  public  moneys,  known  to  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  public  sentiment  in  the  other  Southern 
States,  were  transmitted  to  the  Congress  in  the  hope 
that  a spirit  of  justice,  if  not  solicitude  for  the  perpe- 
tuity of  the  Union,  would  lead  to  a satisfactory  modifi- 
cation of  the  laws. ' But  the  3mar  1828 — another  year 
for  Presidential  candidates  to  exhibit  their  patriotism — - 
dashed  all  these  hopes.  Congress  was  deluged  with  me- 
morials from  the  hungry  manufacturers ; many  mauu- 


‘ Opposition  to  the  “ American  system  ” was  not  confined  to  the 
South  when  it  first  began  to  threaten  the  tranquillity  of  the  Union. 
‘Hn  1837,”  says  M.  M.  Trumbull’s  Free-Trade  Struggle  in  England, 
page  13,  “when  our  ‘infant  industries’  were  much  more  infantile 
than  they  are  nov.',  a committee  of  the  citizens  of  Boston  thus  pro- 
tested against  the  injustice  of  a protective  tariff.  They  declared  it 
false  to  say  that  ‘dear  goods  made  at  home  are  better  than  cheap 
ones  made  abroad ; that  capital  and  labor  can  not  be  employed  in 
this  country  without  protective  duties ; that  it  is  patriotic  to  tax  the 
many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few;  that  it  is  just  to  aid  by  legislation 
manufactures  that  do  not  succeed  without  it ; that  we  ought  to  sell 
to  other  nations,  but  never  buy  from  them.’  They  go  on  to  say 
these  are,  we  have  long  since  known,  fundamental  isrincpjles  among 
the  advocates  of  the  American  system.  It  is,  however,  extraordinary 
that  these  ancient  and  memorable  maxims,  sprung  from  the  dark- 
est ages  of  ignorance  and  barbarism,  should  take  their  last  refuge 
here.’  ” 


180 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


facturers — no  farmers^ — were  examined  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Manufactures,  “and  on  the  31st  of  January  (1828), 
after  spending  four  weeks  in  these  inquiries,  they  made 
a report” ; a bill  was  framed  and  passed  increasing  “the 
rate  of  duties”  on  many  articles  and  lowering  it  on  none. 

The  evident  helplessness  of  the  Southern  people,  since 
the  Constitution  provided  no  tribunal  in  which  they 
could  successfully  attack  an  act  of  Congress  which,  with 
a title  concealing  its  real  purpose,  was  within  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Constitution,  induced  Hon.  William  Dray- 
ton, of  South  Carolina,  to  offer  an  amendment  to  the 
bill,  declaring  what  its  real  purpose  was : but  the  pro- 
tectionists, afraid  of  the  Supreme  Court,  refused  to  ac- 
cept it. 

During  this  and  the  next  year  North  Carolina,  Ala- 
bama, and  Virginia  joined  in  condemning  the  policy 
of  protection,  and  the  two  latter  declared  their  assent 
to  the  doctrine  of  nullification  (in  the  Virginia  House 
by  a vote  of  ISJ  to  68). 

In  the  midst  of  the  discontent  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion resulted  in  the  choice  of  Andrew  Jackson,  a South- 
ern man  and  a native  of  South  Carolina ; and  a glimmer 
of  hope  came  to  the  people.  This  hope  was  strength- 
ended  when  in  his  inaugural  address  March  -f,  1829,  he 
expressed  this  sentiment : 

“With  regard  to  a proper  selection  of  the  subjects  of 
impost,  with  a view  to  revenue,  it  would  seem  to  me 
that  the  spirit  of  equity,  caution,  and  compromise,  in 
which  the  Constitution  was  formed,  requires  that  the 
great  interests  of  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufac- 
tures should  he  equally  favored.  ’ ’ ' And  again  in  his  first 


^ There  is  nothing  in  the  Constitution  authorizing  the  Grovernment 
to  favor  “agriculture,  commerce,  and  manufactures”  any  more  than 
rail -splitting;  and  it  is  impossible  to  favor  one  industry  without 
burdening  all  others. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


181 


annual  message  to  Congress  December  8,  1829,  he  said; 

“In  deliberating,  therefore,  on  these  interesting  sub- 
jects”— the  tariff  rates — “local  feelings  and  prejudices 
should  be  merged  in  the  patriotic  determination  to  pro- 
mote the  great  interests  of  the  whole.  Ml  attempts  to 
connect  them  with  party  conflicts  of  the  day  are  neces- 
sarily injurious,  and  should  be  discountenanced.  * * 

Legislation,  subjected  to  such  influences,  can  never  he 
just,  and  will  not  long  retain  the  sanction  of  the  peo- 
ple, etc.  Discarding  all  calculations  of  political  ascend- 
ency, the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  and  the  West 
should  unite  in  diminishing  any  burden  of  which  either 
may  justly  complain.” 

But  nothing  was  done  during  that  session  of  the  Con- 
gress, and  hope  was  deferred  till  the  next  winter  session. 

A new  question,  however,  was  brought  forward  in 
Congress  in  the  latter  part  of  January,  1830,  which  was 
destined  to  overshadow  the  tariff.  Seeing  no  prospect 
of  relief,  through  the  courts,  from  any  burdens  that 
might  be  imposed  on  their  constituents  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  protected  and  hounty-fed  classes  in  the 
Northern  States,  some  of  the  Southern  members  of  Con- 
gress— notably  Senator  Hayne,  of  South  Carolina — be- 
gan a discussion  of  the  terms  on  which  the  States  had 
agreed  to  form  a Union;  of  the  sources  of  power  in  the 
Federal  Government ; and  of  the  right  of  a State  to  inter- 
pose and  arrest  the  execution  of  any  Federal  measure 
oppressive  to  its  citizens  and  violative  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  as  a last  resort  to  withdraw  from  the  Union. 

This  was  an  unfortunate  move,  aside  fron'.  any  merit 
in  it;  it  united  against  those  who  held  Mr.  Hayne’s 
opinions  many  of  the  honest  and  sincere  friends  of  the 
Union  and  all  those  who  were,  or  hoped  to  be,  bene- 
flciaries  of  Federal  legislation.  Naturally,  a champion 
of  the  Union  was  sought  for ; and  he  was  found  in  Daniel 


182 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Webster,  whose  reply  to  Hayne  added  very  much  to  his 
fame,  was  regarded  as  a coup  de  grace  to  “States' 
rights,”  and  hecame  as  familiar  as  “Mother  Goose’s 
Melodies”  in  every  section  of  the  Union. 

Thus  the  tariff  was  obscured  to  some  extent  by  the 
dangers  to  the  Union,  and  Mr.  Hayne  and  his  sympa- 
thizers were  placed  in  the  false  position  of  moral  crimi- 
nals. 

Let  us  now,  since  we  have  passed  away  from  the  ex- 
citements of  those  times,  candidly  inquire  into  the 
soundness  of  Mr.  Webster’s  argument.  He  delivered 
two  speeches, one  on  January  25th  and  the  other  two  days 
afterwards,  as  a rejoinder.  We  will  consider  them  as 
one. 

1.  He  asserts  that  the  power  of  Congress  is  unlimited 
in  granting  public  lands  for  roads,  canals,  education, 
etc.,  in  Ohio  and  other  Western  States,  without  regard 
to  the  conditions  on  which  Virginia  and  other  States 
ceded  the  lands  to  the  United  States;  and  he  finds  his 
authority  in  the  “common  good”,  it  being,  he  declares, 
“fairly  embraced  in  its  objects  and  its  terms.” 

2.  Of  the  Government  he  says : “It  is  not  the  creature 
of  State  Legislatures;’  nay.  more,  if  the  whole  truth 
must  he  told,  the  people  brought  it  into  existence, 
established  it,  and  have  hitherto  supported  it,  for  the 


‘ The  first  independent  legislative  bodies  in  the  Colonies  were  em 
powered  by  the  people  to  do  everything  necessary  and  proper  for 
their  w'elfare,  including  the  forming  of  alliances.  They  were  at  the 
Same  time  law-making  bodies  and  Conventions.  But  after  Consti- 
tutions were  formed,  the  governments  organized  under  them  were 
restricted  to  functions  not  affecting  their  external  relations.  Hence 
the  wil  1 of  the  people  on  matters  not  provided  for  in  the  Constitu- 
tions could  be  ascertained  only  by  what  in  our  political  nomencla- 
ture ai’e  known  as  Conventions.  By  Conventions,  therefore,  was  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  adopted;  and  it  seems  to  be  little 
better  than  a quibble  to  declare  that  it  was  not  adopted  by  '*  State 
Legislatures.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH.  ' 183 

very  purpose,  among  others,  of  imposing  certain  salu- 
tary restraints  on  State  sovereignties.” 

3.  Having  not  lived  to  see  the  “reconstruction  meas- 
ures” thrown  out  of  court,  as  not  coming  under  its  juris- 
diction, he  asserts  that  all  questions  involving  the  rights 
of  the  States  and  the  powers  of  the  Congress  belong  for 
decision  to  the  United  States  courts. 

4.  Of  the  Government,  again,  he  says;  “So  far  from 

saying  that  it  is  established  by  the  governments  of  the 
several  States,  it  does  not  even  say  that  it  is  established 
by  the  people  of  the  several  States;  but  it  pronounces 
that  it  is  established  by  the  people  of  the  United  States 
in  the  aggregate.  So  they  declare;  and  words 

can  not  be  plainer  than  the  words  used.  * * They 
ordained  such  a Government,  they  gave  it  the  name  of  a 
Constitution,  and  therein  they  established  a distribution 
of  powers  between  this,  their  General  Government,  and 
their  several  State  governments.”  '■ 

To  the  first  of  these  propositions  Mr.  Madison,  in 
No.  XLI,  of  the  Federalist,  gives  answer:  “It  has  been 
urged  and  echoed,  that  the  power  to  day  and  collect 
taxes,  etc,,  to  pay  the  debts,  and  provide  for  the  com- 
mon defense  and  general  welfare,’  etc.,  amounts  to  an 
unlimited  commission  to  exercise  every  power  which 
may  be  alleged  to  be  necessary  for  the  common  defense 
or  general  welfare.  No  stronger  proof  could  be  given 
of  the  distress  under  which  these  writers  labor  for  ob- 
jections, than  their  stooping  to  such  a misconstruction.  ” 

To  the  third  proposition  a satisfactory  answer  was 
given  by  the  protectionists  when  they  declined  to  have 
the  purpose  of  their  tariff  bill  declared  in  its  title. 

To  the  second  and  fourth  Mr.  Webster’s  speech  at 
Capon  Springs  June  28,  1851,  is  a sufficient  answer. 


‘ See  G.  G.  Evans’s  Union  Text-Book,  pages  108-138. 


184 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


But  all  the  same,  there  was  scarcely  a neighborhood 
in  the  Union  in  which  soon  afterwards  could  not  be  seen 
a lithograph  of  Mr.  Webster  with  “ EXPOUNDER  OF 
THE  CONSTITUTION,’’  in  large  capitals,  placed  under 
his  name. 

While  the  assumed  overthrow^  of  Mr.  Hayne  "was  en- 
grossing public  attention  and  solidifying  all  the  forces 
which  confounded  the  preservation  of  the  Union  with 
the  right  of  Congress  to  “foster”  one  branch  of  indus- 
try by  taxing  others,  a personal  controversy  was  thrust 
on  public  attention,  and  shared  with  the  Webster-Hayne 
debate  in  drawing  the  people’s  thoughts  from  the  real 
question  which  their  welfare  required  to  be  calmly  and 
dispassionately  decided. 

President  Jackson  and  Vice-President  Calhoun,  who 
was  a hopeful  aspirant  to  the  Presidency  on  the  retire- 
ment of  Jackson,'  had  all  along  been  close  friends,  and 
it  was  understood  that  the  General  wms  favorable  to  his 
candidacy.  To  Mr.  Calhoun,  says  the  Statesman’s  Man- 
ual, Vol.  2,  page  971,  “as  a more  early  and  efficient  sup- 
porter, the  President  had  given  a greater  share  of  con- 
fidence, and  manifested  a warmer  feeling,  than  he  had 
originally  bestowed  on  the  Secretary  of  State”  (Martin 
Van  Buren).  “In  this  particniar  the  Secretary  labored 
under  a disadvantage,  ” as  a candidate  for  the  succes- 
sion; “but  circumstances  soon  enabled  him  to  obtain  a 
great  superiority  of  influence  over  the  mind  of  the 
President.” 

By  some  means  Mr.  Van  Buren — there  may  have  been 
other  aspirants  concerned  in  it — came  into  possession  of 
a letter  which  revealed  the  cabinet  secret  that  in  ISIS, 
after  General  Jackson,  in  violation  of  orders,  had  in- 
vaded Spanish  territory  (Florida)  and  thereby  provoked 


Jackson  had  declared  his  intention  to  retire  after  one  term. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


185 


a remonstrance  from  the  Spanish  Minister  in  Washing- 
ton, Mr.  Calhoun,  the  Secretary  of  War,  proposed  that 
a court  of  inquiry  should  he  held  on  General  Jackson’s 
conduct.  This  letter  Mr.  Van  Buren  managed  to  have 
placed  in  the  hands  of  General  Jackson.  It  served  its 
purpose ; it  interrupted  the  close  relations  between  the 
President  and  the  Vice-President;  a coolness  ensued, 
and  then  an  open  rupture  in  May,  1830;  and  thereafter 
Jackson  was  an  unrelenting  foe  of  Calhoun. 

This  controversy  played  into  the  hands  of  the  pro- 
tected manufacturers,  who  soon  had  the  pleasure  of 
seeing  the  tariff  question  drift  into  a more  or  less  per- 
sonal warfare  between  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  with  all  his  power,  prestige,  and  influence,  and 
Mr.  Calhoun,  the  intellectual  head  of  the  States’  rights 
advocates,  the  ablest  statesman  of  his  generation,  per- 
haps the  greatest  and  purest  man  in  public  life,  and  a 
man  of  whom  Mr.  Webster  said  in  his  funeral  oration 
“nothing  groveling,  or  low,  or  meanly  selfish”  ever 
“came  near  the  head  or  the  heart.” 

The  first  official  utterance  from  the  Executive  Man- 
sion intended  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  arguments  of 
the  opponents  of  protection,  and  lessen  the  influence  of 
Mr.  Calhoun,  was  an  attempt  to  find  authority  for  pro- 
tection in  the  Constitution.  It  was  in  the  annual  message 
of  December  7,  1830,  as  follows:  “The  object  of  the 
tariff  is  objected  to  by  some  as  unconstitutional;  and 
it  is  considered  by  almost  all  as  defective  in  many  of 
its  parts. 

“The  power  to  impose  duties  on  imports  originally 
belonged  to  the  several  States.  The  right  to  adjust 
those  duties  with  a view  to  the  encouragement  of  do- 
mestic branches  of  industry,  is  so  completely  identical 
with  that  power,  that  it  is  difficult  to  suppose  the  ex- 


186 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


istence  of  the  one  without  the  other. ' The  States  have 
delegated  their  whole  authority  over  imports  to  the 
General  Government,  without  limitation  or  restriction, 
saving  the  very  inconsiflerable  reservation  relating  to 
their  inspection  laws.  This  authority  having  thus  en- 
tirely passed  from  the  States,  the  right  to  exercise  it  for 
the  purpose  of  protection  does  not  exist  in  them ; and. 
consequently,  if  it  be  not  possessed  by  the  General  Gov- 
ernment, it  must  be  extinct.  Our  political  system 
would  thus  present  the  anomaly  of  a people  stripped  of 
the  right  to  foster  their  own  industry,  and  to  counter- 
act the  most  selfish  and  destructive  policy  which  might 
be  adopted  by  foreign  nations.^  This  surely  can  not  be 
the  case : this  indispensable  power,  thus  surrendered  by 
the  States,  must  be  within  the  scope  of  the  authority 
on  the  subject  expressly  delegated  to  Congress.”* 

This  latitudinous  construction  of  the  powers  of  Con- 
gress by  the  chosen  leader  of  the  only  party  which  offered 
any  obstruction  to  the  substitution  of  the  discretion  of 
Congress  for  the  grants  and  limitations  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, was  a complete  justification  of  taxing  one  man  for 
the  benefit  of  another;  and,  if  sustained  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  States  and  of  their  people,  it  removed 


' Why  does  not  the  power  to  lay  and  collect  “excises"  include  the 
power  to  tax  all  fisheries  except  the  cod-fishery,  and  thus  “foster“ 
that  industry  ? 

2 “Treaties  of  commerce  have  been  found,  by  experience,  to  be 
among  the  most  effective  instruments  for  itromoting  peace  and  har- 
mony between  nations  whose  interests,  exclusively  considered  on 
either  side,  are  brought  into  frequent  collisions  by  competition.  "■  — 
See  J.  Q.  Adams’s  Annual  Message.  December  8,  1827. 

® “Hitherto,  I believe  it  may  safely  be  asserted,  that  these  duties” 
— levied  on  imports  in  the  several  States—"  have  not  upon  an  aver- 
age exceeded  in  any  State  3 per  cent.” — (See  Federalist,  Xo.  XII., 
by  Hamilton).  Such,  according  to  the  President,  was  the  protection 
afforded  to  manufactures,  and  such  was  the  protecting  power  dele- 
gated to  the  Congress ! 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


18T 


every  barrier  to  the  rapacity  or  tyranny  of  factions  or 
parties  which  might  gain  control  of  the  Federal  ma- 
chinery. 

But  it  was  the  only  ground  possible  to  be  taken  against 
Mr.  Calhoun’s  views,  and  General  Jackson’s  zeal  got 
the  better  of  his  judgment,  as  is  evident  from  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  his  farewell  address  published  six 
years  afterwards  (March  3,  1837):  “Its  (the  Govern- 
ment’s) legitimate  authority  is  abundantly  sufficient  for 
all  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  created ; and  its  pow- 
ers being  expressly  enumerated,  there  can  be  no  justifi- 
cation for  claiming  anything  heyond  them.  Every 
attempt  to  exercise  power  beyond  these  limits  should  be 
promptly  and  firmly  opposed.  For  one  evil  example 
will  lead  to  other  measures  still  more  mischievous;  and 
if  the  principle  of  constructive  powers,  or  supposed  ad- 
vantages, or  temporary  circumstances,  shall  ever  he  per- 
mitted to  justify  a power  not  given  hy  the  Constitution, 
the  General  Government  will  before  long  absorb  all  the 
powers  of  legislation,  and  you  will  have,  in  effect,  but 
one  consolidated  government.”  And,  again,  “every 
friend  of  our  free  institutions  should  he  always  prepared 
to  maintain  unimpaired  and  in  full  vigor  the  rights  and 
sovereignty  of  the  States.”  And,  again,  “Congress  has 
no  right  under  the  Constitution  to  take  money  from  the 
people  unless  it  is  required  to  execute  some  of  the  spe- 
cific powers  intrusted  to  the  Government.” 

At  that  session  of  Congress  nothing  was  done  with 
the  tariff;  and  during  that  year  (1831)  public  attention 
was  kept  directed  to  the  personal  differences  betw^een  the 
President  and  his  cabinet,  the  schemes  of  Martin  Van 
Buren  to  promote  his  own  candidacy,  and  to  the  meas- 
ures of  the  “kitchen  cabinet,”  though  the  tariff  was 
sufficiently  absorbing  in  some  quartei’S  to  induce  the  as- 
sembling of  a free-trade  convention  in  Philadelphia  on 


188 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


the  1st  of  October,  and  a tariff  convention  in  New  York 
on  the  36th  of  the  same  month.  That  year  also  General 
Jackson  changed  the  purpose  announced  in  1828  to  de- 
cline a reelection  to  the  Presidency,  and  made  active 
efforts  to  insure  his  renornination. 

Ou  the  5th  of  December  Congress  met  in  regular  ses- 
sion, and  the  people  were  anxious  to  know  what  view 
of  the  tariff  he  would  now  present  iu  his  message.  The 
necessity  for  high  taxes,  it  was  known,  would  cease  in 
a few  years,  since  the  public  debt  was  rapidly  approach- 
ing extinction ; he  said,  in  the  message,  that  it  would 
all  be  paid  during  his  Administration,  or  by  March  1, 
1833.  Heuce,  since  the  ordinary  expenses  of  the  Gov- 
ernment did  not  reach  115,000,000,  while  the  receipts 
of  the  treasury  were  more  than  §27,000,000,  it  was 
clearly  the  duty  of  the  Congress  to  provide  for  a gradual 
reduction  of  tariff  rates  down  to  about  half  of  the  exist- 
ing rates. 

Accordingly  the  President,  after  reciting  the  above 
facts  as  to  the  public  debt  and  the  treasury  receipts,  ad- 
vised a reduction  as  follows : 

“A  modification  of  the  tariff,  which  shall  produce  a 
reduction  of  our  revenue  to  the  wants  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  an  adjustment  of  the  duties  on  imports  with 
a view  to  equal  justice  in  relation  to  all  our  national  in- 
terests, and  to  the  counteraction  of  foreign  policy,  so 
far  as  it  may  be  injurious  to  those  interests,  is  deemed 
to  be  one  of  the  principal  objects  which  demand  the 
consideration  of  the  present  Congress.  Justice  to  the 
interests  of  the  merchant,  as  well  as  the  manufacturer, 
requires  that  material  reductions  in  the  import  duties 
be  prospective;  and  unless  the  present  Congress  shall 
dispose  of  the  subject,  the  proposed  reductions  can  not 
properly  be  made  to  take  effect  at  the  period  when  the 
necessity  for  the  revenue  arising  from  present  rates 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


189 


shall  cease.  It  is,  therefore,  desirable  that  arrange- 
ments be  adopted  at  your  present  session  to  relieve  the 
people  from  unnecessary  taxation,  after  the  extinguish- 
ment of  the  public  debt.” 

This  recommendation,  barring  its  assumption  of  power 
to  adjust  rates  for  fostering  some  interest  against  “for- 
eign policy,”  was  gratifying  to  the  agricultural  class, 
and  tended  to  check  excitement  in  the  country. 

But  the  Congress  disregarded  the  recommendation; 
and  unfortunately  for  the  President  and  his  good  inten- 
tions, he  had  at  the  previous  session  of  Congress  assisted 
the  protectionists  in  keeping  up  the  necessity  for  high 
taxes  by  repudiating  his  previous  construction  of  the 
Constitutional  powers  of  Congress  (in  his  Maysville  Eoad 
veto)  and  approving  a scheme  of  internal  improvements 
which  could  ever  after  be  repeated  whenever  there  was 
a surplus  in  the  treasury. ' Instead,  therefore,  of  re- 
ducing the  tariff  rates  as  the  President  had  recom- 
mended, the  protectionists  introduced  and  urged  the 
passage  of  various  internal  improvement  measures;  and 
devised  a plan  for  distributing  among  the  States  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands.  ^ 

The  first  bill  they  passed — the  result  of  much  “log- 
rolling”— carried  an  “amount  exceeding  $1,200,000,” 
and  was  approved  by  the  President.  The  second  was 
for  improving  certain  rivers  and  harbors,  but  it  was 
vetoed. ^ 


^ In  late  years  pension  appropriations  have  famished  an  additional 
outlet  for  any  surpluses  in  the  treasury ; at  the  close  of  the  Presi- 
dential term.  March  4,  1889,  a surplus  of  over  one  hundred  million 
dollars  was  neatly  disposed  of  by  the  “dependent  pension”  bill. 

^ To  get  this  money  permanently  out  of  their  way,  they  passed  a 
bill  in  the  winter  session  of  1832-’33  to  distribute  it  among  the 
States;  but  a “pocket”  veto  prevented  it  from  becoming  a law. — 
(See  Statesman’s  Manual,  Vol.  II,  p.  1,012). 

“Statesman’s  Manual,  Volume  II,  pages  994-95. 


190 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Having  thus  freed  themselves  from  any  necessity  for 
serious  reductions,  they  passed  a bill  lowering  the  rates 
on  such  articles  as  did  not  come  in  competition  with 
like  articles  produced  in  the  Northern  States.  Except 
a slight  reduction  on  hagging,  there  was  no  lowering  of 
the  rates  on  cotton  manufactures;  on  woolen  yarn  d 
cents  per  pound  was  added  to  the  existing  rate ; on  man- 
ufactures of  wool  not  otherwise  provided  for  the  rate 
was  advanced  from  45  to  50  per  cent;  on  wool  hats 
there  was  no  reduction  from  30  per  cent;  on  leather 
shoes  there  was  no  reduction  from  25  cents  per  pair;  on 
ready-made  clothing  there  was  no  reduction  from  50  per 
cent ; on  cut  nails  there  was  no  red  action  from  5 cents 
per  pound;  on  earthenware  there  was  no  reduction  from 
20  per  cent;  on  window  glass  there’ was  no  reduction 
from  >|3  for  the  cheapest  and  85  for  the  dearest  per  100 
square  feet,  etc., etc.  Having  been  approved  hy  Presi- 
dent Jackson,  this  bill  became  a law’  on  the  Idth  of  July, 
1832. 

Thereupon  the  members  from  South  Carolina  issued 
an  address  to  their  constituents  in  which  they  said  with 
much  truth  that  under  such  a system  ‘‘the  burden  of 
supporting  the  Government  was  throwm  exclnsively  on 
the  Southern  States,  and  the  other  States  gained  more 
than  they  lost  by  the  operations  of  the  revenue  system. 
The  address  concluded  thus:  “They  will  not  pretend  to 
suggest  the  appropriate  lemedy,  but  after  expressing 
their  solemn  and  deliberate  conviction  that  the  protect- 
ing system  must  now  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy 
of  the  country,  and  that  all  hope  of  relief  from  Con- 
gress is  irrevocably  gone,  they  leave  it  with  you.  the 
sovereign  power  of  the  State,  to  determine  whether  the 
rights  and  liberties  you  received  as  a precious  inherit- 
ance from  an  illustrious  ancestry,  shall  be  tamely  sur- 
rendered without  a struggle,  or  transmitted  undimin- 

e d to  your  posterity.’’ 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


191 


Meetings  were  accordingly  held  in  South  Carolina, 
the  tariff  was  denounced,  and  pledges  entered  into  to 
support  any  measures  the  Legislature  might  adopt ; and 
in  the  elections  that  year  the  anti-protectionists  elected 
about  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  each  House  of 
the  Legislature. 

As  soon  as  this  was  ascertained.  Governor  Hamilton 
convened  the  Legislature  on  the  22d  of  October,  1832. 
Early  action  was  necessary,  because  it  was  expected  that 
whatever  was  done  would  have  an  influence  on  the  Con- 
gress which  was  to  meet  on  the  first  Monday  in  Decem- 
ber; and  it  was  hoped  that  a bold  stand  for  the  rights 
of  the  State  would  have  the  same  result  as  Georgia’s 
stand  had  had  in  the  contest  over  the  lands  ceded  by 
the  Creek  Indians. 

Immediately  upon  the  assembling  of  the  Legislature 
the  tariff  question  was  taken  up.  and  a bill  was  passed 
on  the  26th  authorizing  a State  Convention  to  meet  on 
November  the  19th.  It  passed  the  Senate  31  to  13. 
and  the  House  by  96  to  26. 

Delegates  to  the  convention  were  promptly  elected, 
and  that  body  met  on  the  appointed  day,  and,  as  hasty 
action  was  necessary  in  view  of  the  early  meeting  of 
Congress,  a committee  was  appointed  at  once  to  pro- 
pose a plan  of  escape  from  the  burden  of  the  tariff.  An 
appeal  to  the  courts  was  clearly  useless;  for,  although 
the  purpose  of  many  of  the  provisions  of  the  law  were 
grossly  violative  of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  and  of 
the  rights  of  the  States,  it  was  Constitutional  in  form 
and  avowed  purpose.  There  being  no  court,  therefore, 
to  which  the  State  could  appeal,  the  committee  reported 
an  ordinance,  which  was  passed  on  the  21th,  declaring 
that  the  tariff  act  of  May  29,  1828.  and  that  of  July  11, 
1832,  were  unauthorized  by  the  Constitution;  that  they 
violated  the  true  meaning  and  intent  of  it;  that  they 


192  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 

were,  therefore,  null  and  void,  not  binding  on  the  citi- 
zens of  that  State;  and  that  the  duties  imposed  by  said 
acts  should  not  be  collected  in  the  ports  of  that  State 
after  February  1,  1833.  It  also  declared  that  any  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Government  to  collect 
by  force  the  duties  imposed  by  those  acts  would  be  in- 
consistent with  the  longer  continuance  of  that  State  in 
the  Union.  And  the  Legislature,  which  was  to  assemble 
in  three  days,  was  directed  to  pass  all  necessary  acts  to 
enforce  this  ordinance. 

This  was  the  seventh  act  of  resistance  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Union. 

1.  The  first  was  the  refusal  of  Gov.  John  Hancock, 
of  Massachusetts,  to  obey  an  order  from  a Federal  court, 
issued  in  pursuance  of  a power  expressly  delegated  to 
the  Federal  judiciary.  His  reason  was  that  a sovereign 
State  could  not  be  sued,  Constitution  or  no  Constitu- 
tion. His  reason  was  held  to  be  sound,  and  to  prevent 
any  further  conflicts  of  State  and  Federal  authority, 
the  eleventh  amendment  was  added  to  the  Constitution. 

2.  The  second  was  New  England's  resistance  to  a law 
of  the  Union.  In  the  winter  of  1808-'9  Congress  passed 
an  act  to  arm  the  President  with  additional  powers  for 
enforcing  the  embargo,  but  certain  disclosures  made  by 
Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams  of  the  purpose  of  the  ruling  party  in 
New  England  to  withdraw  their  States  from  the  Union 
frightened  Congress,  and  the  embargo  was  repealed. 

The  disclosures  were  made  in  February.  1809,  and  the 
repealing  act  was  imssed  on  the  ist  of  March.  ‘ 

3.  The  third  was  the  refusal  of  Gov.  Caleb  Strong, 
of  Massachusetts,  to  comply  with  Hr.  Madison's  call  for 
the  militia  of  Massachusetts  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
War  of  1812.  This  refusal  was  announced  as  early  as 
August  5',  1812,  and  it  was  adhered  to  during  the  war. 


Statesman’s  Manual,  Volume  I,  page  263. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


193 


in  contempt  of  the  Constitution  and  of  the  militia  act 
passed  February  28,  1795.' 

d.  The  fourth  was  like  unto  the  second.  The  first 
act  passed  at  the  session  of  Congress  which  assembled 
December  6,  1813,  and  adjourned  April  8,  1814,  was 
a law  laying  au  embargo  on  all  vessels  within  the  limits 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  to  continue  in 
force  till  January  1,  1815,  unless  the  war  ended  sooner, 
for  the  purpose  of  preventing  “small  vessels  and  boats 
from  supplying  the  British,  squadrons  on  the  coast  with 
provisions”;  but  the  threatening  attitude  of  New  Eng- 
land forced  Congress  to  repeal  the  act  four  days  before 
it  adjourned,  and  permit  the  “ downeasters  ” to  feed  the 
British.  ^ 

5.  The  fifth  was  the  threatening  aspect  of  the  pro- 
ceedings which  led  to  the  holding  of  the  Hartford  Con- 
vention. These  induced  Mr.  Madison  to  make  peace 
with  Great  Britain  without  insisting  on  her  renouncing 
the  right  of  search  or  the  right  to  impress  seamen — the 
only  causes  for  which  the  war  was  declared. 

6.  And  the  sixth  was  Governor  Troup’s  resistance  to 
the  execution  of  a treaty  made  with  the  Creek  Indians.  ^ 

The  first,  therefore,  was  a nullification  of  the  power 
of  the  Federal  judiciary,  and  the  others  nullifications, 
real  or  threatened,  of  the  powers  of  Congress  or  of  the 
President;  and  since  they  affected  no  powerful  mon- 
eyed interests,  and  there  were  no  personal  motives  for 
suppressing  the  offenders,  the  Federal  authorities 
yielded. ' 

' See  Monroe’s  Special  Message,  February  24,  1824. 

“Statesman’s  Manual,  Volume  1,  page  366. 

® See  Stephens’s  Pictorial  History  of  the  United  States,  page  443. 

^ Just  as  was  done  when  thirteen  Northern  States  nullified  that 


13 


194- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


South  Carolina’s  act.  however,  threatening  to  deprive 
the  protected  class  of  their  unjust  privilege  of  robbing 
the  people,  was  represented  as  an  effort  to  break  down 
the  Federal  Government  by  withholding  necessary  sup- 
plies— a charge  which  was  false,  since  her  ordinance 
was  not  to  go  into  effect  till  two  months  after  the  regu- 
lar session  of  Congress  began,  thus  affording  sufficienf 
time  for  that  body  to  amend  the  tariff. 

The  President,  determined  to  crush  Mr.  Calhoun,  who 
was  regarded  as  the  trusted  guide  of  his  people,  and 
who,  by  an  arrangement  with  the  South  Carolina  au- 
thorities, resigned  the  office  of  Vice-President’  and  en- 
tered the  Senate  as  the  successor  of  Mr.  Hayue.  who 
was  chosen  Governor,  issued  a ringing  proclamation  on 
the  10th  of  December,  announcing  his  purpose  to  col- 
lect the  revenues  at  Charleston  by  force  if  nece.ssary, 
ordered  ail  the  available  military  force  to  assemble  at 
Charleston,  and  had  a sloop-of-war  sent  to  protect  the 
custom-house  officers. , His  proclamation  contained  some 
remarkable  opinions  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Union  and 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution — remarkable  in  the 
light  of  some  of  his  previous  utterances.  Let  us  review 
some  of  them. 

1.  He  calls  the  Union  a ‘‘social  compact,"  and  the 
Cnited  States  “it",  in  the  following  sentence;  “But 
reasoning  on  this  subject  is  superfluous,  when  our  social 
compact  in  express  terms  declares  that  the  laws  of  the 

section  of  the  Constitution  which  bound  \heiii  to  deliver  up  fugi- 
tives froui  labor. 

But  to  day,  if  we  examine  any  dictionary  or  cyclopaxlia.  we  shall 
be  told  that  nullification  applies  only  to  an  act  of  Congress,  and,  in 
the  narrow  view  of  the  Century  Dictionary,  that  the  •‘doctrine  was 
elaborated  by  John  C.  Calhoun,  and  applied  by  South  Carolina  in 
1833.” 

‘ December  28. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


195 


United  States,  its  Constitution,  and  treaties  made  under 
it,”  etc. 

2.  Of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  he  says : “We 
declared  ourselves  a nation  by  a joint,  not  by  several, 
acts”  ; and  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  he  says:  “It 
was  in  that  (form)  of  a solemn  league  of  several  States, 
by  which  they  agreed  that  they  would  collectively  form 
one  nation.”  And  of  the  Confederation  he  again  says: 
“ But  the  defects  of  the  Confederation  need  not  be  de- 
tailed. Under  its  operation  we  could  scarcely  he  called 
a nation.  ” 

3.  Of  the  Constitution  he  says:  “We  have  looked  to 
it  with  sacred  awe  as  the  palladium  of  our  liberties,  and, 
with  all  the  solemnities  of  religion,  we  have  pledged  to 
each  other  our  lives  and  fortunes  here,  and  our  hopes 
of  happiness  hereafter,  in  its  defense  and  support.” 
And  of  the  Union  he  says  that  it  is  yet  time  to  show 
that  “the  descendants  of  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumters, 
etc.,  will  not  abandon  that  Union,  to  support  which  so 
many  of  them  fought,  and  bled,  and  died.” 

I.  Of  the  Constitution  he  again  says  that  “the  terms 
used  in  its  construction  show  it  to  be  a Government  in 
which  the  people  of  all  the  States  collectively  are  repre- 
sented. ” 

5.  Of  the  Members  of  Congress  he  says : ‘ ‘ When  chosen 
they  are  all  repi-esentatives  of  the  United  States,  not 
representatives  of  the  particular  State  from  which  they 
come.” 

9.  Of  secession  he  says:  “ But  each  State  having 
expressly  parted  with  so  many  powers  as  to  constitute 
jointly  with  the  other  States  a single  nation,  can  not 
from  that  period  possess  any  right  to  secede,  because 
such  secession  does  not  break  a league,  but  destroys  the 
unity  of  a nation.  * * * To  say  that  any  State  may 


196 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


at  pleasure  secede  from  the  Union,  is  to  say  that  the 
United  States  are  not  a nation.”^ 

7.  Of  sovereignty  he  says;  “The  States  severally  have 
not  retained  their  entire  sovereignty.  It  has  been 
shown  that  in  becoming  parts  of  a nation,  not  members 
of  a league,  they  surrendered  many  of  their  essential 
parts  of  sovereignty.”  And  as  a sample  of  this  surren- 
der he  gives  this:  “They  have  expressly  ceded  the  right 
to  punish  treason — not  treason  against  their  separate 
power — but  treason  against  the  United  States.  Treason 
is  an  offense  against  sovereignty,  and  sovereignty  must 
reside  with  the  power  to  punish  it.” 

8.  He  says  the  Federal  Government  gave  to  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  States  “the  proud  title  of  American 
citizens”;  but  that  if  we  secede  from  the  Union,  “the 
very  name  of  Americans  we  discard” — “that  Union,” 
he  says,  “to  support  vdiich,  so  many  of  them  fought, 
bled,  and  died.” 

While  thus  laying  down  that  exposition  of  the  nature 
of  the  Government  which  will,  in  his  judgment,  justify 
the  infliction  of  the  penalties  of  treason  on  the  people 
of  South  Carolina,  he  does  not  omit  to  point  out  the  ob- 
ject of  his  special  spite,  thus:  “Let  those  among  your 
leaders  who  once  approved  and  advocated  the  principle 
of  protective  duties,"  etc.,  referring  to  Mr.  Calhoun's 
course  in  1816.  Again  he  says:  “Those  who  told  you 
that  you  might  peaceably  prevent  their  execution  de- 
ceived you;  they  could  not  have  been  deceived  them- 
selves. ’ ' 

Now  let  us  inquire  into  the  soundness  of  his  doctrines. 
We  will  take  them  in  the  order  presented  above. 

‘ President  Jackson  seems  to  have  forgotten  that  the  ratifying  Con- 
ventions of  New  York  and  Virginia  declared  the  right  of  those  States 
to  revoke  the  powers  they  were  delegating  in  the  Constitution.— El. 
Deb.,  I,  327-329, 


THE  SOUTH  AGAIJMST  THE  NORTH.  197 

1.  He  says  in  this  proclamation  that  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances there  must  be  an  “acquiescence  in  the  dis- 
solution of  our  Union  by  the  secession  of  one  of  its  mem- 
bers. ” Now  a “member”  of  a “social  compact”  is  one 
human  being;  hence  if  South  Carolina  is  a “member,” 
it  is  an  inexcusable  confusion  of  thought  to  call  the 
Union  a “social  compact.” 

2.  There  is  not  a syllable  or  hint  in  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  or  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  or  in 
the  Constitution  justifying  the  assertion  that  the  peoples 
of  the  States  ever  became  a “nation,  ” except  what  might 
be  inferred  from  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  “with 
foreign  nations” — a phrase  which  was  unavoidable,  and 
which  implied  nothing  as  to  the  political  institutions  of 
any  “foreign  nation, ” or  of  these  States.  On  the  con- 
trary, when  Gov.  Eandolph’s  plan  of  a Constitution  was 
under  discussion,  containing  a provision  for  a “national 
government,”  Mr.  Ellsworth  of  Connecticut,  on  June 
20,  moved  to  strike  out  the  word  “national”;  and  it 
was  done,  nem.  con. ' 

3.  There  is  nothing  in  our  history  warranting  the  pre- 
tension that  anybody  ever  fought,  bled,  or  died  for  the 
purpose  of  binding  one  of  these  States  to  irremediable 
submission  to  the  will  of  others. 

I.  “Collectively”  is  defined  by  Webster’s  Dictionary 
thus;  “In  a mass,  or  body’';  while  the  Constitution 
says  that  representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  “several  States” — several  meaning  separate. 

5.  The  Constitution  says:  “Each  State  shall  have  at 
least  one  representative”;  and  that  “in  choosing  the 
President,  the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  repre- 
sentation from  each  State  having  one  vote.”  In  the 
Senate  no  State  can  be  deprived  of  its  equal  voice  with- 


^See  Yales,  page  152. 


198 


TPIE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


out  its  consent.  And  each  State  votes  for  President 
through  its  own  electors.  In  what  sense,  therefore, 
members  of  Congress  are  “representatives  of  the  United 
States,  not  representatives  of  the  particular  State  from 
which  they  come,”  it  is  impossible  to  understand. 

6.  Here  the  President  admits  that  if  the  United  States 
are  not  a “nation,”  any  State  can  secede.  * 

7.  The  Constitution  provides  for  the  surrender  to  a 
State  of  any  person  who  has  committed  treason  against 
it,  and  fled  to  another  State.  And  it  defines  treason 
against  the  United  States  as  “levying  war  against 
them” — the  States.  Hence,  if  “treason  is  an  offense 
against  sovereignty,”  the  only  sovereignty  recognized 
by  the  Constitution  as  existing  in  our  Union  is  that  in- 
herent in  each  State. 

S.  “American  citizens”  carries  its  own  comment 

To  this  review  and  criticism  of  the  President's  doc- 
trines, it  is  fortunate  that  we  can  add  his  own,  which 
was  called  out  by  the  Eichmond  Enquirer,  the  Peters- 
burg Intelligencer,  and  some  resolutions  in  the  Legis- 
lature of  Virginia.  An  explanation  of  the  principles  of 
the  Proclamation  was  given  to  the  public  iu  the  ^Yash- 
ington  Globe,  by  the  authority  of  the  President. 

In  the  course  of  the  editorial  it  said:  “But  we  are  au- 
thorized to  be  more  explicit,  and  to  say  positively,  that 
no  part  of  the  Proclamation  was  meant  to  countenance 
principles  which  have  been  ascribed  to  it.  On  the  con- 
trary, its  doctrines,  if  construed  in  the  sense  they  were 
intended,  and  carried  out,  inculcate  that  the  Constitu- 

' And  he  yields  everything  claimed  by  the  secessionists  when  he 
states  his  objection  to  South  Cai’olina's  ordinance  thus:  “The  ordi- 
nance is  founded  " * * on  the  strange  position  that  * * * 

the  true  construction  of  that  instrument  (the  Constitution)  permits 
a State  to  retain  its  place  in  the  Union,  and  yet  be  bound  by  no 
other  of  its  laws  than  those  it  may  choose  to  con.sider  as  Constitu- 
tional.’’ 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  19!^ 

tion  of  the  United  States  is  founded  on  compact — that 
this  compact  derives  its  obligation  from  the  agreement, 
entered  into  by  the  people  of  each  of  the  States,  in  their 
political  capacity,  with  the  people  of  the  other  States — 
that  the  Constitution,  which  is  the  offspring  of  this  com- 
pact, has  its  sanction  in  the  ratification  of  the  people  of 
the  several  States,  acting  in  the  capacity  of  separate 
communities,’’  etc.  And  again  it  says;  “That  in  the 
casp  of  a violation  of  the  (Jonstitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  ursurpation  of  powers  not  granted  by 
it  on  the  part  of  the  functionaries  of  the  Ueneral  Gov- 
ernment, the  State  governments  have  the  right  to  inter- 
pose and  arrest  the  evil,  upon  the  principles  which  were 
set  forth  in  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1798.  against  the 
Alien  and  Sediton  Laws — and,  finally,  that  in  extreme 
cases  of  oppression  (every  mode  of  Constitutional  redress 
having  been  sought  in  vain),  the  right  resides  with  the 
people  of  the  several  States  to  organize  resistance  against 
such  oppression,  confiding  in  a good  cause,  the  favor  of 
heaven,  and  the  spirit  of  freemen,  to  vindicate  the 
right.  ” ' 

This  was  an  admission  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrines 
of  Mr,  Calhoun  and  his  supporters,  in  every  essential 
particular,  including  the  right  of  South  Carolina  to  be 
its  own  judge  of  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  and  of 
the  “mode  and  measure  of  redress.” 

But  the  lameness  of  argument  against  the  right  of 
the  State  to  resist  the  execution  of  what  it  believed  to 
be  an  unconstitutional  act  was  less  remarkable  than  the 
assumption  that  a government  created  by  an  association 
of  States  can  compel,  by  force  of  arms,  one  of  its  crea- 
tors to  submit  to  its  decrees.  Under  any  circumstances 
and  under  any  political  system  such  a claim  w'ould  strike 

‘ Statesman’s  Manual,  Volume  II,  pages  808-826,  and  Stephens’s 
War  Between  the  States,  Volume  I,  pages  462-472. 


2U0  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

the  intelligent  portion  of  mankind  as  unfounded,  unless 
there  were  some  positive  and  unmistakable  power  dele- 
gated for  such  a purpose  in  the  charter  of  the  govern- 
ment. In  this  case  nothing  of  the  sort  could  be  found ; 
on  the  contrary,  it  had  been  deliberately  withheld  in 
the  framing  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  plan  of  Gov- 
ernor Randolph,  who  next  to  Mr.  Hamilton,  was  per- 
haps the  foremost  advocate  of  a consolidated  govern- 
ment, it  was  proposed  to  confer  on  the  “National  Legis- 
lature” the  power  “to  call  forth  the  force  of  the  Union 
against  any  member  of  the  Union  failing  to  fulfill  its 
duty  under  the  Articles  thereof.”  But  the  proposition 
received  no  favor;  it  was  well  known  that  the  States 
would  never  adopt  a Constitution  containing  such  a pro- 
vision. '■ 

But  President  Jackson  derived  the  power  to  “coerce” 
a State  from  what  he  acknowledged  in  the  above-men- 
tioned editorial  and  in  his  farewell  address  to  be  an  in- 
correct interpretation  of  the  grants  of  power  by  the 
States. 

After  the  issuance  of  this  Proclamation  it  wms  “dis- 
tinctly foreseen,  ” says  the  Statesman’s  Manual,  “that 
the  final  contest  relating  to  a protecting  tariff  was  about 
to  be  decided.  Upon  distributing  the  various  subjects 
recommended  to  the  consideration  of  Congress,  this 
was  refej’red  in  the  House,  to  the  Committee  of  ^Yays  and 
Means,  of  which  Mr.  Verplanck,  of  New  York,  was 
Chairman.  * * ft  was  now  determined  to  remodel 

the  whole,  to  conciliate  its  opponents  at  the  South,  and 
on  the  27th  of  December,  a bill  was  reported  by  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  which  was  understood 
to  embody  the  views  of  the  Administration.  + * * 

“While  the  discussion  on  the  bill  was  going  on.  new 


* Elliot’s  Debates,  Volume  V,  pagesT28-269. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


201 


interest  was  imparted  to  the  subject  by  a message  from 
the  President  to  Congress,  on  the  16th  of  January,  com- 
municating the  South  Carolina  ordinance  and  nullifying 
laws,  together  with  his  own  views  as  to  what  should  be 
done  under  the  existing  state  of  affairs.  * * * 

“The  whole  subject  was  now  before  Congress;  and 
the  State  Legislatures  being  generally  in  session,  passed 
resolutions  expressing  their  opinions  as  to  the  course  that 
body  ought  to  adopt. 

“In  the  Legislatures  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
New  York,  Delaware,  Tennessee  (Jackson’s  State),  Indi- 
ana, and  Missouri  (the  State  of  Senator  Benton,  who  was 
an  uncompromising  partisan  of  Jackson),  the  doctrines 
of  nullification  were  entirely  disclaimed,  as  destructive 
to  the  Constitution.  Those  of  North  Carolina  and  Ala- 
bama were  no  less  explicit  in  condemning  nullification, 
but  they  also  expressed  an  opinion  that  the  tariff  was 
unconstitutional  and  inexpedient. ' 

“The  State  of  Georgia  also  reprobated  the  doctrine  of 
nullification  as  unconstitutional,  by  a vote  of  102  to  61 
in  her  Legislature ; but  it  denounced  the  tariff  in  de- 
cided terms,  and  proposed  a convention  of  the  States  of 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Ala- 
bama, Tennessee,  and  Mississippi,  to  devise  measures  to 
obtain  relief  from  that  system. 

“The  Legislature  of  Virginia  assumed  a more  extra- 
ordinary ground.  * * * Finally  resolutions  were 

^ The  Legislatiire  of  North  Carolina,  while  holding  that  nullifica- 
tion was  “revolutionary  in  its  character,”  declared  that  “protection” 
was  unconstitutional,  imxaolitic,  unjust,  and  oppressive,  and  urged 
the  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  Tariff  Act;  and  it  instructed  the  Sena- 
tors and  requested  the  Representatives  “to  use  all  Constitutional 
means  m their  power  to  procure  a peaceable  adjustment  of  fhe  exist- 
ing chntroversy  between  the  State  of  South  Carolina  and  the  Glen- 
eral  Government,  and  to  procure  a reconciliation  between  the  con- 
tending parties.” 


202 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


passed,  earnestly  requesting  South  Carolina  not  to  pro- 
ceed further  under  the  ordinance,  etc.,  and  declaring 
that  the  people  of  Virginia  expect  that  the  General  Gov- 
ernment and  the  government  of  South  Carolina  will 
carefully  abstain  from  all  acts  calculated  to  disturb  the 
tranquillity  of  the  country. 

“After  further  resolving  that  they  adhere  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  1708,  but  that  they 
do  not  consider  them  as  sanctioning  the  proceedings  of 
South  Carolina,  or  the  President’s  Proclamation,  they 
proceeded  to  appoint  Benjamin  W.  Leigh,  as  a commis- 
sioner on  the  part  of  the  State,  to  proceed  to  South  Caro- 
lina, to  communicate  the  resolutions,  etc. 

“The  State  of  New  Hampshiie  expressed  no  opinion 
as  to  the  doctrines  of  South  Carolina,  but  the  Legisla- 
ture passed  resolutions  in  favor  of  reducing  the  tariff  to 
the  revenue  standard. 

“On  the  other  hand,  the  Legislatures  of  Massachu- 
setts, Vermont,  Rhode  Island,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsyl- 
vania”— manufacturing  States — “declared  themselves 
to  be  opposed  to  any  modification  of  the  tariff.”' 

After  the  evident  intention  of  Congress  to  adjust  the 
tariff  so  as  to  avoid  a collision  between  General  Jackson 
and  South  Carolina  had  abated  the  excitement  in  that 
State,  its  political  leaders  held  a convention  in  Charles- 
ton (January  ol),  and  resolved  that  the  nullification  ordi- 
nance and  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  of  it  should  he 
suspended  during  the  then  session  of  Congress.  ” 

Congress  had  much  difficulty  in  agreeing  to  a satis- 


‘ Statesman's  Mamial,  Vokime  II,  pages  1.008-1,010. 

^ The  fairness  of  New  England  historians  can  be  inferred  from  the 
following  remark  made  by  Montgomery  (p.  243);  "So  saying,  the 
President  ordered  General  Scott  to  go  forth\'rith  to  Charleston  and 
enforce  the  la'v.  It  was  done,  and  the  duties  on  imported  goods  in 
that  city  were  collected  as  usual.'' 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


203 


factory  bill;  but  at  last  a bill  was  passed,  119  to  96  in 
the  House  and  29  to  16  in  the  Senate,  and  was  approved 
by  the  President  on  the  2d  of  March. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  in  a speech  approving  the  bill,  said: 
“He  who  loves  the  Union  must  desire  to  see  this  agi- 
tating question  brought  to  a termination.  Until  it 
should  be  terminated,  we  could  not  expect  a restoration 
of  peace  or  harmony,  or  a sound  condition  of  things, 
throughout  the  country.  He  believed  that  to  the  un- 
happy divisions  which  had  kept  the  Northern  and  South- 
ern States  apart  from  each  other,  the  present  entirely 
degraded  condition  of  the  country,  for  entirely  degraded 
he  believed  it  to  be,  was  solely  attributable.  * * * 

“He  said  that  it  had  been  his  fate  to  occupy  a posi- 
tion as  hostile  as  any  one  could  in  reference  to  the  pro- 
tecting policy ; but,  if  it  depended  on  his  will,  he  would 
not  give  his  vote  for  the  prostration  of  the  manufac- 
turing interest.  A very  large  capital  had  been  invested 
in  manufactures,  which  had  been  of  giuat  service  to  the 
country,  and  he  would  never  give  his  vote  to  suddenly 
withdrawal!  those  duties  by  which  that  capital  was  sus- 
tained in  the  channel  into  which  it  had  been  directed.” 

Such  was  the  end  of  the  seventh  nullification.^  The 
act  provided  “that  where  the  duties  exceeded  20  per 
cent,  there  should  be  one-tenth  part  of  the  excess  de- 
ducted after  December  30,  1833,  and  one-tenth  each 
alternate  year,  until  December  31,  1811,  when  one-half 
of  the  residue  was  to  be  deducted,  and  after  June  30, 
1812,  the  duties  on  all  goods  were  to  be  reduced  to  20 
per  cent.” 

But  although  the  tariff  struggle  had  been  thus  ended 
for  the  time,  it  had  left  wounds  on  the  Constitution 

' South  Carolina’s  Convention  reassembed  on  the  11th  of  March, 
and  repealed  her  nullification  ordinance. 


204 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


which  never  healed.  The  doctrines  taught  hy  Daniel 
Webster  and  Andrew  Jackson,  which  they  both  shrank 
from  in  after  years — the  former  in  1851,  and  the  latter 
in  1837 — made  impressions  on  the  people  which  were 
destined -to  lead  to  deplorable  results. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


205 


CHAPTER  XV. 

SUGAR  AND  RUM  DRAWBACKS,  AND  FRAUDS:  ANOTHER 
BURDEN  ON  THE  SOUTH. 

Any  attempt  to  sum  up  the  wrongs  attending  our 
tariff  legislation  would  be  incomplete  if  it  omitted  the 
favors  granted  to,  and  the  frauds  practiced  by,  the  re- 
finers of  sugar  and  the  distillers  of  rum.  Our  sources 
of  information  are  meagre ; it  would  be  a reflection  on 
the  cuteness  of  “the  wise  men  of  the  East”  to  suppose 
otherwise.  But  enough  has  been  made  public  to  war- 
rant the  suspicion  that  these  two  classes  of  “patriots” 
have  been  handsomely  rewarded  for  their  share  in  build- 
ing up  “home”  industries,  and  rendering  us  independent 
of  foreigners. 

If  was  only  simple  justice  to  return  to  the  refiner  of 
sugar  for  export  and  to  the  distiller  of  rum  for  export 
the  duties  which  had  been  paid  on  the  raw  sugar  and 
the  molasses  consumed  in  their  operations;  and  accord- 
ingly provision  was  made  in  the  early  tariff  acts  for 
these  drawbacks. 

The  results  were  what  might  have  been  expected; 
Louisiana  sugar  was  mixed  with  imported  sugars,  and 
cheap  whiskey  was  mixed  with  the  rum. 

As  far  back  as  the  session  of  Congress  which  met  in 
December,  182T,  it  was  proved  before  a committee  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  that  large  quantities  of 
cheap  whiskey  were  used  in  the  manufacture  of  New 
England  rum,  having  been  deprived  of  its  peculiar  taste 
and  flavor  by  filtration  through  charcoal ; and  that  the 
exporters  of  this  rum  demanded  and  received  the  draw^- 
back  they  would  have  been  entitled  to  if  nothing  but 
imported  molasses  had  been  used  in  the  manufacture. 

The  sugar  refiners,  however,  escaped  public  attention 


‘20  fi  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

till  after  the  revelations  made  by  the  working  of  the 
compromise  tariff  act  of  1833.  That  act  provided  for  a 
reduction °'of  import  taxes  on  molasses  and  raw  sugar, 
hut  it  made^no  corresponding  reduction  of  the  draw- 
backs. Hence  the  reports  of  the  Treasury  Department 
made  the  revelation  that  in  1837  the  drawback  on  ex- 
ported i-efined  sugar  exceeded  the  revenue  collected  on 
imported  raw  sugar  by  8861.71 ; and  that  in  1839  about 
all  the  molasses  imported  (392,368  gallons)  was  exported 
as  rum  ( 356,699  gallons),  leaving  for  the  “home  mar- 
ket” no  rum  and  no  molasses  except  that  produced  in 
Louisiana. 

The  excess  of  drawback  on  sugar  (according  to  Doc. 
No.  275,  submitted  to  the  Senate  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  in  the  winter  of  1839  and  1810)  rose  in 
1838  to  812,690,  and  in  1839  to  820,151:  and  the  report 
sho  wed  that  in  1839  the  refiners  exported  100,  ouo  pounds 
of  suga’’  more  than  was  imported. 

It  went  further;  it  estimated  that  the  excess  of  the 
sugar  drawback,  supposing  the  amount  imported  not  to 
increase  over  what  it  was  in  1839,  would  be  837.313  in 
1810,  837,313  in  1811,  8111,693  in  1812,  and  8110.177 
in  1813. ' 

The  beneficiaries  of  these  bounties  and  frauds  were 
twenty-nine  refineries,  “the  whole  of  which,”  said  Mr. 
Benton,  “omitting  some  small  ones  in  the  M'est.  and 
three  in  New  Orleans,  were  situate  on  the  north  side  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.” 

The  frauds  perpetrated  by  the  distillers  seem  to  have 
been  productive  of  more  “gayueful  pilladge”  than  the 
sugar  frauds.  The  average  yield  of  a gallon  of  molas- 
ses, according  to  evidence  in  Mr.  Benton's  possession, 
was  less  than  a gallon  of  rum.  But  the  census  of  1850 


^See  chapter  o3.  Volume  II,  Thirty  Years'  View. 


TPIE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


207 


gave  6,600,500  gallons  of  rmn  as  the  product  of  1S49, 
while  the  importations  of  molasses  were  only  3,885,525 
gallons.  The  distillers,  therefore,  received  as  drawback 
about  $1.70  for  every  $1  paid  into  the  treasury  on  im- 
ported molasses.  And  this  is  not  remarkable;  the  esti- 
mate for  1842,  in  the  Secretary’s  report,  was  that  all 
the  molasses  revenue  would  go  to  the  distillers. 

The  beneficiaries  of  the  rum  drawback  and  frauds 
lived,  as  did  most  of  the  sugar  refiners,  “north  of 
Mason  and  Dixon’s  line.”  Maiue,  Massachusetts,  Con- 
necticut, and  New  York  produced  6,496,000  gallons  of 
the  6,500,5(»0  gallons  reported  in  1849,  of  which  Massa- 
chusetts contributed  3,786,000  gallons,  or  nearly  60  per 
cent  of  the  whole. 

During  all  theyeai  sof  these  frauds,  reaching  up  to  1861, 
the  refiners  and  the  distillers  were  “protected”  in  the 
home  market  by  import  taxes  ranging  from  24  per  cent 
(1857)  to  12  cents  per  pound  on  sugar,  and  from  30  jier 
cent  (1857)  to  90  cents  per  gallon  on  rum;  and  it  is 
quite  likely  that  the  prices  of  their  sugar  and  rum,  when 
sold  in  the  United  States,  were  the  foreign  prices  plus 
the  drawback.' 

' t^ince  18C1  it  lias  been  the  policy  of  the  political  party  which  has 
enacted  every  tariff  law.  except  the  short-lived  Wilson  Act,  to  deny 
that  tariff  acts  foster  frauds;  and,  as  the  public  attention  has  been 
kept  directed  to  exciting  sectional  questions,  schemes  to  rob  the 
people  or  their  treasury  have  usually  managed  to  escape  exposure. 


208 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

SLAVERY. 

The  care  with  which  the  writers  of  most  of  the  cheap 
and  attractive  school  histories  which  the  publishing 
houses  in  the  Northern  cities  have  been  introducing  into 
the  schools  of  the  South  during  the  last  thirty  years, 
recoi’d  the  importation  of  African  slaves  into  the  South- 
ern Colonies,  while  omitting  their  introduction  into 
those  of  the  North,  and  conceal  altogether  or  misrepre- 
sent the  essential  facts  on  which  alone  can  be  founded 
a just  judgment  of  the  long  controversy  between  the 
Northern  and  Southern  sections  of  the  Union,  which 
terminated  in  a war  between  them,  deserves  the  rebuke 
which  it  is  proper  here  to  summon  the  cold  and  una- 
dorned facts  of  history  to  administer. 

One  of  these  books  (perhaps  a fair  sample  of  what 
Southern  children  have  been  studying  for  a quarter  of  a 
century)  is  called  The  Eclectic  Primary  History  of  the 
United  States.  Its  first  reference  to  slavery  is  in  these 
words  (p.  30):  ‘‘One  day  a Dutch  vessel  visited  .laines- 
town.  She  had  20  Africans  on  board,  who  were  sold  to 
the  Colonists.  In  this  manner  negro  slavery  was  intro- 
duced into  our  country.’'  The  second  is  on  page  171  in 
these  words : “You  have  been  told  when  African  slavery 
was  introduced  into  Virginia.  As  our  country  grew 
and  prospered,  slavery  extended  into  many  of  the  States. 
It  was  legal  in  all  of  them  that  lay  south  of  Mason  and 
Dixon’s  line,  which,  you  know,  marked  the  boundary 
between  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland.”  And  the  next 
is  in  Part  IV,  which  begins  thus:  “The  Southern,  or 
Slave  States,  believed  that  the  election  of  a Republican 
President  woukUeudanger  States’  rights  and  the  exist- 
ence of  negro  slavery.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


209 


Another  one  of  them  published  hy  the  Educational 
Publishing  Company,  Boston,  is  called  American  His- 
tor/j  Stories.  It  is  a more  attractive  volume  than  the 
one  above-mentioned;  and  it  can  be  found  in  Southern 
schools. 

After  utterly  ignoring  the  existence  of  Indian  and  ne- 
gro slavery  in  the  North,  and  expressing  sorrow  that 
slaves  in  Virginia  “did  all  the  work  for  their  masters, 
and  received  no  pay  for  it” — the  sons  and  daughters  of 
the  slave-holder,  of  course,  growing  up  in  absolute  idle- 
ness— it  says  the  Georgians  introduced  slavery  into  their 
Colony  because  they  “were  not  a God-fearing  people  as 
were  the  Puritans  and  Quakers.” 

The  ignorance  of  these  so-called  historians,  or  their 
deliberate  purpose  to  prejudice  the  youth  of  these  States 
against  the  Southern  people,  will  appear  as  we  proceed. 

In  the  days  when  the  first  British  North  American 
Colonies  were  settled,  and  long  afterwards,  the  white 
man  entertained  no  doubt  about  his  right  to  enslave  any 
race  of  people  whom  he  regarded  as  morally  and  intel- 
lectually his  inferior;  and  since  in  those  days  every 
man’s  station  in  the  world  was  held  to  be  the  one  as- 
signed to  him  by  his  Creator,  at  which  it  would  have 
been  impious  to  complain,  nearly  two  centuries  passed 
by  before  the  slow-growing  spirit  of  justice,  equality, 
and  fraternity  began,  even  in  a few  isolated  cases,  to 
embrace  the  negro  among  the  objects  of  its  sympathies.  ‘ 

At  the  battle  on  the  Mystic  Eiver,  in  Connecticut. 
May  20.  163T,  between  the  Pequods  and  the  combined 

'■  Senator  Charles  Sniiuier  of  Massachusetts,  as  will  be  seen  in  an- 
other chapter,  based  his  denial  that  slavery  ever  existed  in  Massa- 
chusetts, “in  any  just  sense,’’  on  the  absence  of  any  law  establishing: 
slavery  there ; but  perhaps  he  could  have  proved  by  similar  evidence 
that  slavery  nevei’  existed  in  iSouth  Carolina,  or  in  any  other  State. 
He  might  have  gone  further  and  proved  that  no  man  in  Massachu- 
setts ever  owned  a horse. 

11 


210 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


forces  of  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  aided  by  some 
Indians,  about  two  hundred  women  and  children  were 
captured.  They  were  divided  between  these  forces  and 
their  Indian  allies,  and  reduced  to  slavery;  and  after- 
wards, since  Indians  did  not  make  docile  slaves,  they 
were  shipped  to  the  West  Indies  and  exchanged  for 
“blackamoors”  (negroes) — an  exchange  in  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  late  Hon.  Jeremiah  S.  Black’s  under- 
standing of  Moore's  Notes  on  the  History  of  Slavery  in 
Massachusetts,  the  M'est  Indian  got  cheated. ' 

Six  years  afterwards  (161-3)  the  Colonies  of  Massachu- 
setts Bay,  Plymouth,  Connecticut,  and  New  Haven 
formed  a Confederation  between  themselves,  in  which 
they  mutually  agreed  to  sm  render  fugitive  slaves  on 
the  demand  of  the  owners. 

In  1676.  after  King  Philip  had  been  slain,  beheaded, 
and  quartered,  because  he  had  sought  revenge  for  the 
indiguities  heaped  upon  his  brother,  Wamsutta.  Sachem 
of  his  tribe,  ending  in  his  death  by  poison  (as  Philip 
believed),  Philip’s  son,  a lad  nine  years  old,  whose  grand- 
father, Massasoit,  had  been  a life-long  friend  of  the 
Colonists  (when  they  sorely  needed  a friend),  was  ship- 
ped to  Bermuda,  and  sold  as  a slave.  “ 

In  1638  the  Salem  ship  “the  Desire'’  (built  at  IVIarble- 
head  in  1636)  brought  into  Massachusetts  a number  of 
negroes,  and  found  ready  sale  for  them.  “This  first 
entrance  into  the  slave-trade,’’  says  Moore,  “was  not 
a private,  individual  speculation.  It  Avas  the  enterprise 
of  the  authorities  of  the  Colony.'’® 

' An  imperfect  but  interesting  account  of ‘‘the  most  sanguinary 
atrocities  of  the  ^Yhites”  during  their  Indian  wars  can  be  found  in 
Irving’s  SkeWi  Boole — "‘Philip  of  Pokanoket.” 

- ‘"Two  distinguished  preachers,  Rev.  Samuel  Arnold  of  Marsh- 
field, and  Rev.  John  Cotton  of  Plymouth,  were  asked  to  ad%ise 
what  to  do  with  Philip’s  .son.  They  said  "butcher  him.' ’’—Moore, 
page  45. 

® Unless  otherwise  stated,  quot  ations  in  this  chapter  are  from  Moore. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  211 

In  1720  Governor  Shute  informed  the  Lords  of  Trade 
that  there  were  2,000  slaves  in  Massachusetts,  includ- 
ing a few  Indians.  He  added  that,  during  the  same 
year,  37  male  and  6 female  negroes  were  imported,  with 
the  remark,  “No  great  difference  for  7 years  last  past.” 

“In  1735  there  were  2,600  negroes  in  the  Province.” 

“In  1742  there  were  1,514  in  Boston  alone.” 

In  1754  there  were  in  Massachusetts  4,489  slaves  16 
years  old  and  upwards.  In  17 64- ’5  the  number  was 
5,779.  In  1776  there  were  5,249;  in  1784,  4,377;  in 
1786,  4,371;  and  in  1790,  6,001. 

And  these  slaves  were  treated  as  cruelly,  and  sold 
with  as  little  regard  for  paternal,  maternal,  conjugal, 
or  filial  love,  as  they  ever  were  in  any  other  Colony  or 
State. 

The  New  England  Weekly  Journal,  55th  numher, 
dated  April  8,  1728,  contained  two  advertisements  as 
follows ; 

“111:^“  A very  likely  negro  girl,  about  13  or  14  years 
of  age,  speaks  good  English,  has  been  in  the  country 
some  years,  to  be  sold.  Inquire  of  the  printer  hereof. 

A very  likely  negro  woman  who  can  do  house- 
hold work,  and  is  fit  either  for  town  or  country  service, 
about  22  years  of  age,  to  be  sold.  Inquire  of  the  printer 
hereof.  ’ ’ ' 

The  Boston  Newsletter,  August  12  to  19,  1731,  con- 
tained this; 

“Just  arrived  a choice  lot  of  negro  hoys  and  girls.” 

The  New  England  Weekly  Journal,  May  1,  1732,  con- 
tained this: 

“ A likely  negro  woman  about  19  years  and  a child  of 
about  6 months  of  age  to  be  sold  together  or  apart. 

And  the  Boston  Gazette  and  Journal,  August  18, 
1766,  made  this  announcement: 


'Aklen’s  Cyclopoedia,  Art.  Newspaper. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


212 

“A  likely  negro  man,  taken  by  execution,  and  to  be 
sold  by  public  auction  * * * at  6 o'clock  this  after- 

noon. ” 

This  “chattel”  slavery  was  recognized  by  Chief  Jus- 
tice Parker,  in  1816,  in  Andover  v.  Canton,  thus:  “The 
practice  was  * * * .j-q  consider  such  issue  (of  sla- 

ves) as  slaves,  and  the  property  of  the  jnaster  of  the 
parents,  liable  to  be  sold  and  transferred  like  other  chat- 
tels, and  as  assets  in  the  hands  of  executors  and  admin- 
istrators. ’ ' 

And  even  as  late  as  1796  a slave  was  sold  at  public- 
auction  in  Cambridge,  Massachusetts.  ^ 

Of  other  cruelties  inflicted  on  their  “chattels”  the  two 
following  quotations  from  Moore  will  furnish  sufficient 
proof : 

“The  law  of  1T<I3.  chapter  2,  was  in  restraint  of  the 
‘manumission,  discharge,  or  setting  free’  of  mulatto  or 
negro  slaves.  Security  was  required  against  the  con- 
tingency of  these  persons  becoming  a charge  to  the 
town,  and  none  were  to  be  accounted  free  for  whom 
security  is  not  given.”  etc. 

Chapter  4 of  the  same  act  forbade  ‘-Indian,  negio.  or 
mulatto  servants  or  slaves  to  be  abroad  after  9 o'clock.” 
etc.  ^ 


'See  Watson  vs.  Cambridge,  I.')  Z'lass..  ‘28G-ST. 

- Moore  copies  a disgusting  story  from  .Josselyn's  Account  of  Two 
Voyages  to  New  England  (prrblished  in  London.  Ifi64),  which  begins 
as  follows:  "The  2d  of  October,  16:39,  about  9 of  the  clock  in  the 
morning  Mr.  Maverick's  negro  woman  came  to  my  chamber  win 
dow,  and  in  her  own  country  language  and  tune  sang  very  loud  and 
shrill,  going  out  to  her-,  she  used  a great  deal  of  respect  toward 
me,  and  willingly  wmuld  have  expressed  her  grief  in  English;  but  I 
a]»prehended  it  by  her  coirntenance  and  deportment,  whereupoir  I 
repaired  to  my  host,  to  learn  of  him  the  cairse,  and  resolved  to  in- 
treat him  in  her  behalf,  for  that  1 rrnderstood  before,  that  she  had 
been  a queen  in  her  own  corrntry.  and  observed  a very  humble  and 
dutiful  garb  used  toward  her  by  another-  negi'o  who  was  her  maiil. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


213 


“Dr.  Belknap  says  that  ‘ negro  children  were  consid- 
ered an  incumbrance  in  a family;  and,  when  weaned, 
were  given  away  like  puppies.  ’ They  were  frequently 
publicly  advertised  to  be  given  away,”  etc. 

It  would  not  farther  the  object  of  this  chapter  to  pur- 
sue mere  details;  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  the  moral 
code  of  the  New  Englanders  will  render  them  unneces- 
sary. These  we  can  gather  from  the  records  presented 
to  us  by  Moore.  “Emanuel  Downing,”  he  says  on 
page  9,  “a  lav/yer  of  the  Inner  Temple,  London,  who 
married  Lucy  Winthrop,  a sister  of  the  elder  Wiuthrop, 
came  over  to  New  England  in  1638.  * * * In  a let- 

ter to  his  brother-in-law,  ‘probably  written  in  the  sum- 
mer of  164:0,’  * * * he  says: 

“ ‘ A warr  with  the  Narragansett  is  verie  considerable 
to  this  plantation,  ffor  I doubt  whither  yt  be  not  synne 
in  vs,  having  power  in  our  hands,  to  suffer  them  to 
maynteyne  the  worship  of  the  devill,  which  their  paw 
wawes  often  do;  She.  if  upon  a Just  warre  the  Lord 
should  deliver  them  into  our  hands,  we  might  easily 
have  men,  women  and  children  enough  to  exchange  for 
Moores,  which  will  be  more  gayneful  pilladge  for  us 
than  we  conceive.  * * * And  I suppose  you  know  verie 
well  how  we  shall  maynteyne  20  Moores  cheaper  than 
one  English  servant.’  ” 

Of  the  legal  status  of  slavery  in  Massachusetts,  of 
v/hich  Mr.  Sumner^  seems  to  have  been  totally  ignorant, 
all  doubt  is  removed  by  the  records  which  patient  re- 
search enabled  Hildreth  and  Moore  to  bring  to  light. 
The  former,  a native  of  Massachusetts,  published  in 


"Mr.  Maverick  was  desirous  to  have  a breed  of  negroes,  and  there 
fore,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

“This  she  took  in  high  disdain  beyond  her  slavery,  and  this  was 
the  cause  of  her  grief.” 

1 See  Note  T. 


214 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


181;9-’o6  a six-volume  History  of  the  United  States, 
wherein,  on  page  200  of  Vol.  I,  he  tells  us  that  in  1641 
Massachusetts  adopted  her  Fundamentals  or  Body  of  Lih- 
drties,  which  recognized  and  authorized  the  slavery  of 
‘‘captives  taken  in  just  wars  and  such  strangers  as  wil- 
lingly sell  themselves  or  are  sold  unto  us.”  This  an- 
ticipates “h}^  20  years,”  he  adds,  “anything  of  the  sort 
to  he  found  in  the  statutes  of  Virginia  or  Maryland.” 

The  latter  (Moore,  a native  of  New  Hampshire)  says 
on  page  18 : “Thus  stood  the  statute  through  the  whole 
Colonial  period,  and  it  was  never  expressly  repealed. 
Based  on  the  Mosaic  code,  it  is  an  absolute  recognition 
of  slavery  as  a legal  status,  and  of  the  right,  etc.  It 
sanctions  the  slave-trade,  and  the  perpetual  bondage  of 
Indians  and  negroes,  their  children  and  children’s  chil- 
dren, and  entitles  Massachusetts  to  precedence  over  any 
of  the  other  Colonies  in  similar  legislation.  It  antici- 
pates by  many  years  anything  of  the  sort  to  be  found 
in  the  statutes  of  Virginia,  or  Maryland,  or  South  Caro- 
lina. ” 

It  seems  that  slavery  was  never  abolished  in  Massa- 
chusetts by  any  act  of  the  Legislature.  The  first  article 
of  her  Bill  of  Rights,  adopted  as  a preamble  to  her  Con- 
stitution in  1780,  declared  that  “all  men  are  born  free 
and  equal;”  but  the  discovery  that  negroes  were  “men” 
was  made  in  after  years  by  her  Supreme  Judicial  Court, 
and  even  then  none  w'ere  “men”  except  those  born  after 
1780.  In  Bigelow’s  Digest  of  the  Reported  Cases,  etc., 
page  605,  this  occurs  in  one  of  the  decisions;  “The  chil- 
dren of  slaves,  born  after  the  adoption  of  the  present 
Constitution,  were  born  free” — which  was  legislation 
by  the  court,  since  not  a single  slave  was  set  free  by 
operation  of  the  Constitution,  as  was  proved  by  the  cen- 
sus of  1790. 

But  the  cost  of  maintaining  a negro  slave  and  his  un- 


THE  SOrTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


21^ 


fitness  for  many  of  the  occupations  of  the  people  in  the 
rigorous  climate  of  New  England  proved  a barrier  to 
such  a general  employment  of  negroes  as  took  place  in 
the  South;  and  the  same  causes,  particularly  the  first 
named,  operated  in  the  other  Northern  Colonies  with 
a force  diminishing  with  their  latitude.  Experience 
taught  the  people  at  an  early  day  that  white  servants 
were  more  profitable. 

As  might  have  been  expected,  therefore,  the  census- 
takers  in  1790  found  only  -10,850  slaves  in  the  New  Eng- 
land States,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania 
(the  so-called  Free  States). 

The  number  of  slaves  in  these  States  was  shown  at 
each  succeeding  census  up  to  1840  to  be  as  follows; 


1800, 

1810, 

1820, 

1830, 

1840, 


35,946 

27,510 

19.108 

3,568 

1,129 


In  1840  the  numbers  still  remaining  in  the  then  so- 
called  Free  States  were:  1 in  New  Hampshire,  5 in 
Ehode  Island,  17  in  Connecticut,  4 in  New  York,  64  in 
Pennsylvania,  674  in  New  Jersey,  3 in  Ohio,  3 in  Indi- 
ana, 331  in  Illinois,  11  in  Wisconsin,  and  16  in  Iowa.' 

Although  the  doctrine  that  “all  men  were  created 
eqiiaP’  began  to  threaten  time-honoi'ed  class  distinc- 
tions in  the  third  quarter  of  the  18th  century,  and  one 
of  the  most  damning  charges  against  George  III  in 
Jefferson’s  draft  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
(stricken  out  by  the  committee  on  revision)  was  that 
“he  had  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself, 
violating  its  most  sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty  in  the 


^ Slaves  were  held  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Wisconsin,  and  Iowa 
under  Virginia’s  deed  of  cession  and  France’s  deed  for  the  Louisiana 
pui’chase. — (See  Hinsdale’s  Old  Northwest,  p.  349.) 


216 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


persons  of  a distant  people  (negroes  in  Africai  who 
never  offended  him,”  it  was  many  years  before  any 
State  passed  any  act  to  liberate  its  slaves.  It  is  true 
that  Mr.  Sumner  in  the  speech  already  referred  to  ar- 
rogantly affirmed  that  “in  1780  * * * Massachu- 

setts, animated  by  the  struggles  of  the  Eevolution,  and 
filled  by  the  sentiments  of  freedom,  placed  in  front  of 
her  Bill  of  Rights  the  emphatic  words  that  ‘all  men  are 
born  free  and  equal.’  and  by  this  declaration  extermi- 
nated every  vestige  of  slavery  within  her  own  borders”  : 
and  it  is  also  true  that  tne  Supreme  Judicial  Court  of 
the  State,  in  Inhabitants  of  Winchendon  v.  the  Inhabi- 
tants of  Hatfield,  ( Bigelow’s  Digest,  p.  605)  declared  that 
slavery  “was  tolerated  till  tlie  latification  of  the 
present  Constitution,  when  it  was  abolished  in  this  State 
by  virtue  of  the  first  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  ” ' But 
it  is  also  true  that  this  first  article  did  no  snch  thing : 
although,  as  Moore  says  on  page  19,  this  falsehood  “has 
been  persistently  asserted  and  repeated  by  all  sorts  of 
authorities,  historical  and  legal,  up  to  that  of  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Commonwealth."^ 
“‘The  Guinea  Trade,’  as  it  was  called,’*  says  Moore, 
page  65,  “continued  to  fiourish  under  the  auspices  of 
Massachusetts  merchants  down  through  the  entire  Co- 
lonial period,  and  long  after  the  boasted  Declaration  of 
Rights  in  1780  had  terminated  (?)  the  legal  existence  of 
slavery  within  the  limits  of  the  State.'* 

‘ The  first  article  in  Yirg-inia’s  Hill  of  Higlits,  adopted  June  12.  1776, 
is:  “That  all  men  are  by  nature  equally  free  and  independent  and 
have  certain  inherent  rights,”  etc. 

-Von  Holst.  Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States.  Volume 
I,  page  287,  says:  “In  Massachusetts,  before  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, decisions  had  repeatedly  been  given  by  juries  which  can 
be  justified  only  by  the  supposition  that  slavery  had  no  legal  exist- 
ence in  the  Colony.” 

And  Professor  Von  Holst,  all  through  his  seven  volumes,  delights 
in  criticising  what  he  calls  Southern  “slavocracy.  ” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  217 

He  then  copies  a letter  from  Felt’s  Salem,  Vol.  2, 
pages  289  and  290,  written  by  a prominent  Massachusetts 
merchant,  whose  name  he  suppresses,  a paragraph 
from  which  is  here  produced : 

“ , November  12,  1785. 

‘‘Oapt. 

“Our  brig  of  which  you  have  the  command,  being 
cleared  at  the  office,  and  being  in  every  other  respect 
complete  for  sea;  our  orders  are,  that  you  embrace  the 
first  fair  wind  and  make  the  best  of  your  way  to  the 
coast  of  Africa,  and  then  invest  your  cargo  (rum)  in 
slaves.” 

This  was  five  years  after  “all  men”  were  declared  to 
be  “born  free  and  equal,”  and  this  merchant,  at  least,  did 
not  include  negroes  among  “men.” 

But  the  prospective  or  actual  judicial  interpretation  of 
the  famous  “first  article”  as  liberating  all  children  of 
slaves  at  birth,  had  a marked  effect  on  the  increase  of 
the  colored  population  of  Massachusetts.  The  normal 
increase  of  that  population  in  the  United  States  from 
1880  to  1890  is  elsewhere  shown  to  have  been  13.5  per 
cent.  Applying  this  rate  to  Massachusetts  we  find  that 
the  colored  population  (6,452)  in  1800  fell  616  short  of 
what  it  should  have  been  (7,323)  in  1810;  and  that  the 
increase  from  6,737  in  1810  fell  916  below  what  it  should 
have  been  (7,646)  in  1820. ' What  became  of  these  1,532 
unfortunate  creatures  is  indicated  in  the  remark  of 
Senator  Butler  in  his  debate  with  Mr.  Sumner  (in  the 
33d  Congress)  that  “when  slavery  was  abolished” — up 
North — “many  that  had  been  slaves,  and  might  have 
been  freemen,  were  sold  into  bondage.” 

A prevalent  misconception  on  another  point  will  jus- 
tify a quotation  from  Moore.  It  is  “civil  rights”  or 


^See  Art.  Massachusetts— Population — in  Alden's  CyelopcDedia. 


218  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 

“social  equality.  ” He  says  on  page  60 : “Free  negroes 
not  being  allowed  to  train  in  the  militia,  an  act  passed 
in  1707,  chapter  2,  requiring  them  to  do  service  on  the 
highways  and  in  cleaning  the  streets,  etc. , as  an  equiva- 
lent. 

And  the  hypocritical  howl  that  went  up  in  Massachu- 
setts at  the  expulsion  of  Samuel  Hoar  from  South  Caro- 
lina, whither  he  had  been  officiously  and  offensively  sent ' 
to  test  the  Constitutionality  of  an  act  authorizing  the 
imprisonment  of  free  negroes  landing  in  that  State  from 
other  States  (an  act  for  which  the  provocation  was  far 
more  aggravating  than  that  which  induced  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois  to  exclude  free  negroes  from  their  borders), 
appears  in  all  its  odiousness  when  we  read  what  Moore 
says  on  page  282.  On  the  26th  of  March,  1788,  the 
Legislature  of  that  State  passed  an  act  providing  “that 
no  person  being  an  African  or  negro,  other  than  a subject 
of  the  Emperor  of  Morocco,  or  a citizen  of  some  one  of 
the  United  States  (to  be  evidenced  by  a certificate  from 
the  Secretary  of  the  State  of  which  he  shall  be  a citizen), 
shall  tarry  within  this  Common  wealth,  for  a longer  time 
than  two  months,  ” under  a penalty  of  being  whipped  for 
every  failure  to  leave  after  being  warned  by  a Justice  of 
the  Peace. 

Thus  the  evidence  is  ample  that  the  enslavement  of 
human  beings  in  the  Northeastern  section  of  the  Union 
was  as  legal  and  as  cruel  as  in  any  other  section ; and  the 
evidence  that  slavery  became  less  prevalent  in  the  former 
section  for  economic  reasons  alone,  is  equally  satisfac- 
tory. 

Tlie  humane  spirit  which  revolted  at  the  barbarities  of 
the  African  slave-trade  did  not  manifest  itself  in  Massa- 
chusetts before  it  didin  Maryland  or  South  Carolina,  as 
it  should  have  done  it  there  v.mre  any  ground  for  the 


By  the  Legislatui’e  of  Massachusetts  in  1844. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


219 


lofty  tone  of  her  Eepresentatives  in  later  years.  This 
may  have  been  due  to  the  circumstance  that  much  of 
her  shipping  was  engaged  in  this  “gayneful  pilladge.” 

The  statistics  presented  by  Dubois  in  his  Suppression 
of  the  Slave  Trade,  pages  22(1  et  seq.,  throw  a long- 
needed  searchlight  on  her  pretensions.  They  are  as  fol- 
lows; 

“1783.  Maryland  prohibited  importations. 

1783.  South  Carolina  levied  3 and  20  pounds  duty  on 
importations. 

1784:.  South  Carolina’s  act  levying  3 and  5 pounds 
duty. 

1786.  North  Carolina  levied  a prohibitory  duty. 

1787.  South  Carolina  totally  prohibited  importations. 

1788.  New  York  prohibited  the  slave  trade. 

1788.  Massachusetts'  prohibited  the  slave  trade. 

1788.  Pennsylvania  prohibited  the  slave  trade. 

1788.  Connecticut  prohibited  the  slave  trade. 

1788.  South  Carolina  prohibited  the  slave  trade  till 
January  1,  1793. 

1789.  Delaware  prohibited  the  slave  trade. 

1789.  Parker,  of  Virginia,  proposed  in  Congress  110 
a head  on  importations.  ^ 

1792.  South  Carolina  prohibited  till  1795. 

1793.  Georgia  prohibited  importations. 

1794.  North  Carolina  prohibited  importations.^ 

' “The  kidnapping-  of  three  colored  persons  at  Boston,  eiiticed  on 
board  a vessel  and  carried  to  the  West  Indies,  where  they  were  sold 
as  slaves,  produced  a great  excitement  in  Massachusetts,  and  occa- 
sioned"’ the  passage  of  the  act  prohibiting  the  slave  trade. — Hil- 
dreth, Second  Series,  Volume  I,  page  175. 

One  of  the  leading  opponents  of  Parker’s  motion,  according  to 
Lives  of  the  Signer’s,  page  235,  was  Roger  Sherman,  of  Comrecticut ; 
and,  according  to  Greeley,  I,  page  45.  Sherman  was  one  of  the  fir.st 
to  consent  to  a continuance  of  the  slave  trade. 

^ “By  land  or  water.” — Haywood's  Manual,  page  381. 


220 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


1794.  South  Carolina  extended  her  act  of  1792  to 
1797.'’ 

Virginia  had  as  far  back  as  1740  levied  a tax  of  ten 
per  cent  on  the  value  of  every  slave  imported,  to  he  paid 
by  the  purchaser;  and  this  tax  was  never  reduced. — 
Historical  Collections  of  Virginia,  by  Henry  Howe.  p.  134. 

And  Georgia  placed  this  provision  in  her  Constitution 
in  1798 ; 

“There  shall  be  no  future  importation  of  slaves  into 
this  State,  fjrom  Africa  or  any  foreign  place,  after  the 
first  clay  of  October  next.’’ 

So  it  seems  that,  whatever  the  motive  was,  whether 
moral,  economic,  or  humane,  there  is  no  foundation  for 
the  claim  that  any  one  State  or  section  was  the  cham- 
pion, par  excellence,  of  anti-slavery. 

But,  if  we  were  to  grant  all  that  has  been  claimed  for 
the  famous  “first  article”  in  the  Constitution  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, we  could  not  shut  our  eyes  to  the  truth  that 
the  African  slave  trade,  which  we  have  seen  was  going 
on  five  years  after  the  adoption  of  her  Constitution,  Avas 
a source  of  “gayneful  pilladge”  to  her  shippers  for  at 
least  seventy-seven  years. 

The  inability  of  the  States  to  enforce  their  laws  against 
the  New  England  slave  traders,  after  they  had  transfer- 
red to  the  Congress  the  control  of  the  naval  forces  of  the 
States,  induced  South  Carolina  in  1S03  to  repeal  her  law. 
and  wait  until  1808  when  Congress  could  suppress  the 
traffic.  It  was  not  a creditable  spectacle  to  have  the  law 
constantly  violated  with  impunity  by  “our  Eastern 
brethren,”  as  Mr.  Lowndes,  of  that  State,  explained  in 
the  House  of  Eepreseutatives  February  14,  1804. 

It  would  lend  interest  to  the  subject  if  we  could  ex- 
amine the  records  of  the  numerous  trials  of  captured 
slavers;  but  we  must  be  content  with  a brief  summary 
of  the  efforts  made  by  the  Legislative  and  ExecutiA'e 
branches  of  the  Federal  Government. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


221 


The  act  of  Congress  for  suppressing  the  importation 
of  slaves  b'-came  effective  on  January  1.  1808 — or, 
rather,  it  was  intended  to  be  effective  on  that  day:  but 
a threatened  penalty  of  ten  thousand  dollars  and  not  less 
than  two  years  imprisonment,  together  with  a forfeiture 
of  the  vessel,  etc.,  could  not  deter  “our  Eastern  breth- 
ren “ from  continuing  the  traffic. 

“ Among  the  commercial  abuses, ’’  said  Mr.  Madison  in 
his  annual  message  of  December  5,  18ln,  “still  commit- 
ted under  the  American  flag,  it  appears  that  American 
citizens  are  instrumental  in  carrying  on  a traffic  in  en- 
slaved Africans.’’  He  recommended  “further  means  of 
suppressing  the  evil.’’ 

In  his  eighth  annual  message,  December  3,  1816,  he 
said:  “The  interposition  of  Congress  appears  to  be  re- 
quired by  the  violations  and  evasions  which  it  is  sug- 
gested are  chargeable  on  unworthy  citizens  who  mingle 
in  the  slave  trade  under  foreign  flags  and  with  foreign 
ports,  and  by  collusive  importations  of  slaves  into  the 
United  States  through  adjoining  ports  and  Territories’’ 
( Florida  and  Texas ).  He  thereupon  advised  that  a remedy 
be  found  and  applied;  and  the  attempt  was  made  in  the 
act  of  April  2o,  1818,  which  imposed  heavy  penalties  on 
persons  who  engaged  in  the  slave  trade  anywhere,  and 
also  on  any  person  who  should  build,  equip,  etc.,  or  aid 
and  abet  the  building  or  equipping  of  any  vessel  intended 
for  the  slave  trade.  But  the  cupidity  of  the  slave  trad- 
ers laughed  at  the  laws ; and  “some  of  our  public  ships.” 
said  the  message  of  November  1-1,  1820,'  “have  been 
employed  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  where  several  captures 
have  been  made  of  vessels  engaged  in  that  disgraceful 
traffic.” 

In  his  annual  message  of  December  6,  1825,  President 

’ The  act  of  May  15,  1820,  declared  the  slave  trade  to  be  piracy; 
but  even  this  did  not  deter  "our  Eastern  brethren." 


222 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Adams  informed  the  Congress  that  “an  occasional  cruiser 
has  been  sent  to  range  along  the  African  shores  most 
polluted  by  the  traffic  of  slaves.’' 

In  1828,  since  it  was  known  that  the  traffic  was  still 
carried  on.  Congress  appropriated  830,000  for  its  sup- 
pression. 

Twelve  years  afterwards  (ISfO)  Mr.  Van  Buren’s  mes- 
sage informed  the  Congress  that  “the  Brig  Dolphin  and 
the  Schooner  Grampus  had  been  employed  during  the 
last  season  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  such  portions  of  that  trade  as  were  said  to 
be  prosecuted  under  the  American  flag,’’  and  having  re- 
turned home  at  the  commencement  of  the  rainy  season, 
“ had  since  been  despatched  on  a similar  service.” 

In  Mr.  Tyler’s  message  to  the  special  session  of  Con- 
gress -June  1,  1811,  he  advised  more  striugent  laws  for 
the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade  because  “there  is  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  traffic  is  on  the  increase.’" 

On  January  9,  18-13,  Mr.  Tyler’s  special  message  in- 
formed the  Congress  that  he  “could  not  be  ignorant 
-X-  * Qf  well-grounded  suspicions  which  pervaded 

the  country,  that  some  American  vessels  were  engaged 
in  that  odious  and  unlawful  traffic.” 

On  June  16,  i860,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the 
President  to  enter  into  “contract  with  any  person  or 
persons,  society  or  societies,  or  body  corporate,  for  a 
term  not  exceeding  five  years,  to  receive  from  the  Uni- 
ted States,  through  their  duly  constituted  agent  or 
agents  upon  the  coast  of  Africa,  all  negroes,  mulattoes. 
or  persons  of  color,  delivered  from  on  board  vessels 
seized  in  the  prosecution  of  the  slave  trade,  etc.,  and  to 
provide  the  said  negroes,  etc.,  with  comfortable  cloth- 
ing, shelter,  and  provisions  for  a period  not  exceeding- 
one  year  at  a price  in  no  case  to  exceed  one  hundred 
dollars  for  each  person  so  clothed.’’  etc. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


223 


The  traffic  seemed  to  defy  all  legislation;  it  could  not 
be  suppressed.  “Notorious  American  citizens”  kept  it 
up.  On  March  20,  1861,  the  Nightingale  of  Boston, 
Francis  Bowen,  master,  with  961  negroes  on  board  and 
“expecting  roore,  ” was  captured  on  the  coast  of  Africa. 

On  May  21  “the  American  brig  Triton”  and  the 
American  vessel  “Falmouth”  were  on  the  coast  of 
Africa  engaged  in  the  slave  trade ; and  if  the  officer  who 
captured  the  Triton  had  been  there  “one  month  earlier” 
he  might  have  captured  “nine  slavers,”  all  of  which 
“escaped  except  the  Nightingale.”  On  March  28, 
1862,  there  were  two  American  vessels  at  Cadiz,  the 
ship  Clarissa  and  brig  Falmouth,  “both  suspected  of  be- 
ing in  preparation  to  engage  in  the  slave  trade.”’ 

Thus  seventy-four  years  after  Massachusetts  made  a 
spasmodic  effort  to  prevent  her  “subjects,”  as  her  Con- 
stitution called  them,  from  engaging  in  the  slave  trade, 
that  execrable  traffic  was  still  going  on  under  cir- 
cumstances which  forbid  the  palliating  supposition  that 
she  did  not  wink  at  it. 

The  profits  of  this  “gayneful  pilladge,  ” not  including 
those  from  sales  in  foreign  countries,  could  be  approxi- 
mately estimated  by  a simple  calculation,  if  we  had  their 
price-lists. 

The  colored  population  of  all  the  States  and  Territo- 
ries, including  blacks,  mulattoes,  quadroons,  and  octo- 
roons, increased  from  6,580,793  in  1880  to  7,447,040  in 
1890,  or  13.51  per  cent;  and  it  is  not  likely  that  the  per 
cent  of  increase,  during  any  one  decade  since  1790, 
could  have  been  larger  under  normal  conditions.  The 
following  table,  therefore,  constructed  from  official  rec- 
ords (except  as  to  Alabama  in  the  decade  closing  with 
1820,  in  which  her  colored  population  has  been  esti- 


^ See  Naval  War  Records,  Volume  I,  pages  11,  12,  13,  24,  366,  378. 


224 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


mated  as  equal  to  the  whites),  cau  be  relied  on  as  reveal- 
ing the  volume  of  the  business. 

Table  showing  the  per  cent  of  increase  of  colored  peo- 
ple in  tlie  two  sections  of  the  Union  by  decades  from 
1800  to  18d0: 


Decades. 

Northern  States. 

Southern  States. 

1800-1810. 

27.19 

33.5 

1810-1820, 

- 

15.4 

25.  ' 

1820-1830, 

- 

15.6 

31.7 

1830-1840, 

- 

21.8 

19. 

Now  remembering  that  many  of  these  people  fled  to 
Canada,  and  that,  after  1816,  many  of  them  emigrated 
to  Africa  (Liberia)  under  the  auspices  of  the  American 
Colonization  Society,  of  which  Henry  Clay,  a Southern 
man,  was  the  first  President,  and  making  a reasonable 
allovrance  for  the  increase  due  to  the  acquisition  of  Louis- 
iana and  Florida,  we  are  prepared  to  form  some  esti- 
mate of  the  stream  of  wealth  which  the  slave  trade 
caused  to  flow  from  the  South  to  the  North.  Indeed, 
in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  made  to  check  the  traffic  by 
Presidents  Tyler,  Polk,  Taylor,  Fillmore,  Pierce,  and 
Buchanan,  “our  Eastern  bretbren"  ran  the  rate  of  in- 
crease up  to  25.12  in  the  decade  closing  with  1856  (in 
which  Texas  was  annexed),  and  to  23.25  in  the  decade 
preceding  the  w^ar. 

Now  the  reader  must  not  su])pose  that  all  this  evi- 
dence is  presented  with  any  purpose  of  proving  that  the 
people  of  the  Northern  States  were  “sinners  above  all 
other  men”:  the  object  is  to  enlighten  those  who.  hav- 
ing formed  their  opinions  from  reading  books  written 
by  ignorant  or  disingenuos  authors,  cheap  newspapers 
and  magazines  scattered  all  over  the  Union  from  the 
cities  of  the  North,  and  speeches  delivered  here  and 
there  by  uninformed  or  prejudiced  orators  in  and  out  of 
the  pulpit,  have  believed  that  the  people  of  the  South- 
ern States  were  the  chief,  if  not  the  only,  offenders 
against  the  laws  of  humanity. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


225 


Note  T. 

Extracts  from  the  debate  between  Senators  Sumner  and  Butler 
in  J une,  1854,  beginning  on  page  1,013  of  the  Aiopendix  to  the  Con- 
gressional Globe,  First  Session,  Thirty- third  Congress: 

“Mr.  Sumner.  * * * But  enough  for  the  present.  * * * 

There  are,  however,  yet  other  things  in  the  assault  of  the  venei'able 
Senator  (Butler)  which,  for  the  sake  of  truth,  in  just  defense  of 
Massachusetts,  and  in  honor  of  freedom,  shall  not  be  left  unan- 
swered. 

“Alluding  to  those  days  when  Massachusetts  was  illustrated  by 
Otis,  Hancock,  and  the  ‘brace  of  Adamses';  when  Faneuil  Hall  sent 
forth  echoes  of  liberty  which  resounded  even  to  South  Carolina, 
and  the  very  stones  in  the  streets  of  Boston  rose  in  mutiny  against 
tyranny,  the  Senator  with  the  silver  white  locks,  in  the  very  ecstacy, 
broke  forth  in  the  ejaculation  that  Mas,sachusetts  was  then  ‘slave- 
holding,’ and  he  presumed  to  hail  these  patriots  as  representatives 
of  ‘hardy,  slave-holding  Massachusetts.’  Sir,  I repel  the  imputa- 
tion. It  is  true  that  Massachusetts  was  hardy;  but  she  was  not,  in 
any  just  sense,  slave  holding.  And  had  she  been  so,  she  could  not 
have  been  ‘hardy.  ’ The  two  character! .sties  are  inconsistent  as  weak- 
ness and  strength,  as  sickness  and  health — I had  almost  said,  as  life 
and  death. 

“The  Senator  opens  a page,  v Inch  I would  willingly  present.  Sir, 
slavery  never  flourished  in  Massachusetts;  nor  did  it  ever  prevail 
there  at  any  time,  even  in  early  Colonial  days,  to  such  a degree  as 
to  be  a distinctive  feature  of  her  powerful  civilization.  Her  few 
slaves  were  merely  for  a term  of  years,  or  for  life.  If,  in  point  cf 
fact,  their  issue  was  sometimes  held  in  bondage,  it  was  never  by 
sanction  of  any  statute  or  law  of  Colony  or  Commonwealth.  * * * 
In  all  her  annals  no  person  was  ever  born  a slave  on  the  soil  of  Mas- 
sachusetts. This,  of  itself,  is  a response  to  the  imputation  of  the 
Senator.,  * * * 

“At  last,  in  1780,  * * * Massachusetts,  animated  by  the  strug- 
gles of  the  Revolution,  and  filled  by  the  sentiments  of  freedom,  placed 
in  front  of  her  Bill  of  Rights  the  emphatic  words  that  ‘all  men  are 
boim  free  and  equal,’  and  by  this  declaration  exterminated  every 
ve.stige  of  slavery  within  her  borders. 

“And  let  me  add  that  when  this_Senaror  (Butler)  presumes  to  say 
that  American  Independence  was  won  by  the  arms  and  treasure  of 
slave-holding  communities,  he  speaks  either  in  irony  or  ignorance.” 

“Mr.  Butler.  * * * When  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
made,  was  not  Connecticut  a slave  holding  State?” 

“Mr.  Sumner.  Not  in  any  just  sense.” 

“Mr.  Butler.  Sir,  you  are  not  the  judge  of  that.  Was  not  New 
York  a slave-holding  State?” 

15 


226 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


“Mr.  Sumner.  Let  the  Senator  (Seward)  from  New  York  answer.  ” 

“Mr.  Butler.  Sir,  if  he  answers,  he  will  answer  the  truth,  and 
perhaps  it  might  not  be  exactly  agreeable  to  you.  Was  not  New 
Jersey  a slave  holding  State?  Was  not  Rhode  Island  a slave-hold- 
ing State  ? ” 

“Mr.  Seward.  It  is  due  to  the  honorable  Senator  from  South  Car- 
olina that  I should  answer  his  question  in  reference  to  New  York, 
since  it  has  been  referred  to  me.  At  the  time  of  the  Revolution, 
every  sixteenth  man  in  the  State  of  New  York  was  a slave.” 

■s-  * -X-  -:t  -x  * * 

“Mr.  Butler.  Was  not  New  Hampshire  a slave  holding  State? 
Was  not  Pennsylvania  a slave  holding  State  ? Was  not  Delaware  a 
slave  holding  State?  Was  not  Maryland  a slave  holding  State?  Was 
not  Virginia  a slave  holding  State?  Was  not  North  Carolina  a slave 
holding  State?  Was  not  Georgia  a slave  holding  State  ?”  * * * 

“Mr.  Seward.  I am  requested  to  make  my  answer  a little  more 
accurate,  according  to  the  truth.  I understand,  that  at  the  time  of 
the  Revolution,  every  twelfth  man  in  New  York  was  a slave.” 

“Mr.  Butler.  * * * History  can  recognize  no  distinction  be 

tween  them.  In  the  progress  of  events  changes  have  taken  ijlace. 

* * * These  will  afford  no  excuse  for  denying  the  irrevocable 
certainty  of  the  past.  They  can  afford  no  refuge  for  historical  false- 
hood such  as  the  gentleman  has  committed  in  the  fallacy  of  his  sec 
tional  vision.  I have  shown  that  twelve  of  the  original  States  were 
slave  holding  communities.  Now,  sir,  I prove  that  the  thirteenth. 
Massachusetts,  was  a slave  holding  State  before,  and  at  the  com 
inencement  of,  the  Revolution.  * * * As  to  the  character  cf 
slavery  in  that  State,  that  may  be  sc  me  what  a different  thing, 
which  can  not  contradict  the  fact  stated  m the  newsi^apers  of  the 
day,  that  negroes  were  held,  were  advertised  for  sale,  with  another 
truth,  that  many  were  sent  to  other  slave  holding  States  in  the  way 
of  traffic.  When  slavery  was  abolished,  many  that  had  been  slaves 
and  might  have  been  freemen,  xvere  sold  into  bondage.” 

Replying  to  what  Mr.  Butler  had  said,  Mr.  Sumner,  m the  Globe, 
page  1,555,  made  a di.stinction,  as  follows:  “By  slave-holding  States, 
of  course,  I mean  States  which  were  peculiarly,  distinctively,  essen- 
tially slave-holding,  and  not  States  in  which  the  holding  of  slaves 
seems  to  have  been  rather  the  accident  of  the  hour,  and  in  which 
all  the  people,  nr  the  greater  part  of  the  people,  were  ready  to  wel 
come  emancipation.” 

To  this  Mr.  Butler  replied:  “Mr.  President,  1 think  the  remarks 
of  the  Senator  verify  exactly  what  I said,  that  when  he  chooses  to  be 
rhetorical,  it  is  upon  an  assumption  of  facts,  upon  his  own  construe 
tion,  and  by  an  accumulation  of  adjectives”;  and  then  Mr.  Butler 
brought  in  Mr.  Garnett’s  pamphlet,  showing  how  pensions  had  been 
unfairly  divided  betw’een  the  two  sections  of  the  Union. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


227 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

SLAVERY  AS  A MORAL  EVIL,  AND  AS  A SECTIONAL  ISSUE. 

It  has  been  so  long  asserted,  and  dinned  into  the  ears 
of  mankind  through  so  many  channels,  that  the  people 
of  the  New  England  States  were  the  first  to  arrive  at 
that  high  moral  plane  whereon  human  slavery  is  an 
offense,  that  it  is  now  almost  ineradically  stereotyped  in 
the  literature  of  English-speaking  peoples ; and  as  nearly 
eighteen  centuries  passed  by  before  the  student  com- 
menced the  work  of  exposing  the  shams,  the  frauds,  the 
mendacity,  and  the  tyrannous  rule  of  the  ruffians  of  an- 
cient Rome,  so  it  may  be  centuries  before  the  preten- 
sions of  “our  Eastern  brethren”  are  laid  bare  before  the 
eyes  of  the  world.  But  justice  to  all  parties  concerned 
demands  an  attempt  at  such  an  exposure,  and  as  we 
probably  have  no  “dark  ages”  to  go  through,  it  is  hoped 
that  some  impression  may  be  made  on  even  the  present 
generation. 

The  white  people  of  the  Southern  States  who  were 
born  after  there  began  to  be  any  doubts  about  the  right 
of  one  man  to  own  another,  inherited  African  slavery, 
were  accustomed  to  it  from  their  infancy,  and,  if,  as  they 
grew  up,  thej^  had  any  scruples  about  it,  they  could  de- 
vise no  practical  and  satisfactory  means  of  emancipat- 
ing their  slaves.  “They  had  the  wolf  by  the  ears,”  as 
Mr.  Jefferson  put  it.  They  were  no  more  willing  to 
enfranchise  them  than  were  the  people  of  Connecticut, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana, 
Illinois,  Michigan,  Iowa,  Wisconsin,  California,  and  Ore- 
gon, whose  State  Constitutions  denied  the  ballot  to  free 
colored  persons  (which  North  Carolina’s  Constitution 
did  not  do  until  1835);  or  the  people  of  Massachusetts, 
New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  and  Rhode  Island,  who  ex- 


22  8 THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

eluded  them  by  educational  or  property  qualifications, 
or  both.  Nor  were  they  willing  to  turn  adrift  to  shift 
for  themselves  such  a mass  of  human  beings,  untrained 
to  the  duties  of  citizenship,  of  questionable  ability  to 
maintain  themselves  in  the  struggle  for  existence,  and 
likely  to  become  a public  charge — one  of  the  reasons, 
perhaps,  why  Indiana’s  Constitution  (adopted  in  1851 ) 
forbade  the  migration  of  free  negroes  into  her  borders. 

The  Southern  people  were  not  unacquainted  with  lib- 
erated slaves.  From  moral  or  other  considerations  thou- 
sands of  slave-owners  in  the  South,  during  and  after 
the  Revolution,  set  their  slaves  free,  some  transporting 
them  to  the  Northwest,  wdth  means  to  support  them- 
selves for  a year;  but  in  most  cases  the  owner  was  un- 
able to'do  this,  and  the  ex-slaves,  remaining  in  their  old 
neighborhood,  added  nothing  to  its  material  advance- 
ment or  its  moral  growth;  on  the  contrary  they  were 
a clog  on  both.  In  1790  there  were  32,035  free  persons 
of  color  in  the  so-called  Slave  States;  in  1800  01,211;  in 
1810  108,205,  in  1820  135,1-3I.  etc.,  etc.  In  1810  the 
numbers  in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  respectively, 
were  19,812  and  22,732. 

The  unsatisfactory  results  of  freeing  slaves  in  North 
Carolina,  after  the  Revolution  commenced,  induced  the 
Legislature  in  1777  to  enact  that  “no  negro  or  mulatto 
slave  shall  hereafter  be  set  free,  except  for  meritorious 
services.  ” 

In  North  Carolina,  to  the  other  objections  to  the  lib- 
eration of  slaves  was  added  the  Constitutional  provision, 
adopted  in  1776  and  never  altered  until  1835.  that  “all 
freemen  of  the  age  of  twenty-one  years  * * shall 

be  entitled  to  vote,”  etc.  But,  perhaps,  the  strongest 
objection  is  indicated  in  the  act  passed  by  the  North  Caro- 
lina Legislature  in  1801  requiring  persons  who  liberated 
slaves  “to  enter  into  bond  in  the  sum  of  one  hundred 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


220 


pounds  for  each  slave  so  liberated  * * * that  such 

slave  or  negro  shall  not  become  chargeable  on  the 
parish  or  county” ; and  authorizing  the  wardens  of  the 
poor  to  arrest,  if  necessary,  and  place  under  bonds  for 
a similar  purpose  any  slave-holder  who  was  about  to 
move  away  and  leave  his  slaves  behind  for  the  county 
to  support. 

This  experience  was  not  confined  to  the  South.  In 
1849  Cooper  said  in  the  Spy;  ‘‘The  old  family  servant, 
who,  born  and  reared  in  the  dwelling  of  his  master, 
identified  himself  with  the  welfare  of  those  whom  it 
was  his  lot  to  serve,  is  giving  place  in  every  direction 
to  that  vagrant  class  v*^hich  has  sprung  up  within  the 
last  thirty  years,  and  whose  members  roam  through 
the  country  unfettered  by  principles,  and  uninfluenced 
by  attachments.”  And  in  1860  Thomas  Prentice  Ket- 
tell.  “late  editor  of  the  Democratic  Review.”  said  in  a 
volume  entitled  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Prog- 
ress: “Those  (fugitive  slaves)  only  who  have  a good 
deal  of  white  blood  have  sufficient  energy  to  migrate ; 
the  true  black,  never.  Enough  of  the  black  nature  re- 
mains in  the  runaway,  however,  to  unfit  him  for  any 
useful  purpose.  This  fact  is  within  the  knowledge  of 
every  citizen  of  the  United  States.  In  all  the  Northern 
States  there  are  hanging  on  the  outskirts  of  towns  and 
villages  pauper  blacks,  the  miserable  remnant  of  former 
well-fed  slaves.  These  are  always  a nuisance,  and  so 
well  known  is  it  that  even  Ohio,  * ^ ^ among  its 

first  laws  enacted  one  excluding  blacks  from  the  State 
on  any  pretence.  The  white  person  who  brought  in  a 
free  negro  must  give  security  in  S500  for  the  behavior 
of  the  black,  and  that  he  should  not  come  upon  the 
town.  Illinois  and  other  States  enacted  the  same  law, 
and  very  justly.  The  free  black,  without  referring  to 
the  fact  that  he  is  here  through  no  fault  of  his  own. 


230 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


will  not  contribute  his  share  to  the  exigencies  of  society, 
and  it  is  too  much  to  impose  his  support  upon  the  labor 
of  industrious  whites.  He  claims  to  be  free,  but  lives 
only  to  prey  upon  society. ' ’ 

As  to  genuine  regard  for  the  colored  people  and 
their  equal  rights  as  human  beings,  there  seems  to  have 
been  as  much  in  the  South  as  in  the  North;*  and  their 
status  as  “chattels”  was  no  more  offensive  to  the  sensi- 
bilities of  the  white  man  in  one  section  than  in  the  other. 
The  treaty  of  peace  of  1783  containing  the  stipulation 
that  “His  Britannic  Majesty  shall  * * * without 
carrying  away  any  negroes  or  other  property  of  the 
American  inhabitants,  withdraw  all  his  armies,”  etc., 
etc.,  was  negotiated  by  Jobn  Adams,  John  Jay,  and  Ben- 
jamin Franklin — all  Northern  men.  Four  years  after- 
wards, the  final  draft  of  a Constitution,  containing  the 
provision  that  the  Congress  should  neither  prohibit  the 
importation  of  slaves  nor  levy  any  tax  on  them,  was 
reported  by  a committee  consisting  of  two  Southern 
and  three  Northern  members,  namely,  Rutledge  of 
South  Carolina,  Randolph  of  Virginia,  Gorham  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, Ellsworth  of  Connecticut,  and  Wilson  of 
Pennsylvania.  Twenty  years  afterwards  (1807),  the  act 


1 Of  the  g:reater  kindness  and  indulgence,  in  fact,  of  the  Southern 
man  as  a slave-liolder,  the  testimony  of  the  negro  himself  was  con- 
vincing enough.  The  Northern  man  who  came  to  the  South  and  ^ 
became  a slave  holder  was  notoriously  a more  exacting  slave  driver 
than  the  Southerner  was;  and  whenever  it  was  suspected  by  the 
slaves  that  “young  Missis”  intended  to  marry  a “Yankee. " there 
was  quite  a commotion  among  them,  and  opposition  to  the  match 
was  loud  and  vigorous.  Mrs.  Stowe  emijhasized  this  distinction  be- 
tween the  two  classes  of  slave- holders;  her  most  brutal  of  all  human 
monsters  with  white  skins — Legree — was  a New  England  Yankee. 
And  in  her  appeal  to  the  men  and  women  of  the  North  she  says: 

“ If  the  mothers  of  the  free  States  had  all  felt  as  they  should,  in 
times  past,  the  sons  of  the  free  States  would  not  have  been  the 
holders,  and,  proverbially,  the  hardest  masters  of  slaves.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


231 


to  prohibit  the  importation  of  African  slaves  was  passed 
ill  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  by  113  yeas  to  5 nays, 
one  of  the  nays  being  from  Vermont,  one  from  New 
Hampshire,  two  from  Virginia,  and  one  from  South 
Carolina.  In  this  same  year  (1807)  another  question 
was  disposed  of  in  the  Congress  which  seiwed  the  double 
purpose  of  removing  any  suspicion  of  sectional  differ- 
ence in  those  days  as  to  the  morality  of  African  slavery, 
and  of  correctly  defining  the  ‘‘extension  of  slavery,” 
which  in  after  years  became  such  a powerful  weapon  in 
the  hands  of  dishonest  agitators  and  ignorant  fanatics, 
who  were  banded  together  for  the  destruction  of  that 
“domestic  tranquillity,”  the  insuring  of  which  was  one 
of  the  indispensable  conditions  on  which  the  original 
thirteen  States  agreed  to  form  a Union. 

On  July  13th  of  that  year  the  Legislative  Council  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  Indiana  Territory  (embrac- 
ing the  present  States  of  Indiana  and  Illinois)  adopted 
by  unanimous  votes  and  sent  to  Congress  a petition, 
asking  it  to  suspend  for  ten  years  the  6th  Article  of 
compact  in  the  Ordinance'  for  the  government  of  the 
territory  northwest  of  the  Ohio ; and  permit  the  intro- 
duction of  African  slaves  into  the  Territory.  ^ 

This  petition,  transmitted  to  the  Congress  hy  Gov. 
William  H.  Harrison,  was  inspired  by  the  wish  of  the 
people  in  the  western  part  of  the  Territory  to  divert  to 
their  own  borders  the  stream  of  immigration  then  pour- 
ing from  the  South  into  Missouri  (“Upper  Louisiana”), 
as  is  shown  by  a petition  from  351  citizens  of  Randolph 
and  St.  Clair  counties)  now  in  southwest  Illinois,  bor- 
dering on  the  Mississippi  River,  sent  to  the  Congress  in 

1 This  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Northwest  Territory  was  voted 
for  in  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  (1787)  by  every  delegate 
from  the  Southern  States. 

^ State  Papers,  First  Session,  Tenth  Congress,  Volume  I. 


232 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


December,  1805.  They  prayed  that  the  Congress  would 
divide  the  Indiana  Territory,  and  erect  a separate  Terri- 
torial government,  and  consent  to  the  introduction  of 
slaves  into  it,  either  unconditionally  or  under  such  re- 
strictions, etc. : and  among  the  reasons  given  was  that 
“the  rage  for  emigration  to  Upper  Louisiana  would  not 
only  in  a great  measure  cease,  but  have  a tendency  to 
enhance  the  value  of  the  public  lands  on  the  east  side 
of  the  Mississippi,  render  their  sale  rapid,  and  by  an  in- 
crease of  its  population  place  in  a flourishing  situation 
the  country,  which,”  etc.’ 

The  report  of  the  committee  to  whom  was  referred 
the  petition  of  the  Territorial  Legislature,  submutted  to 
the  Senate  by  Senator  Jesse  Franklin  of  North  Caro- 
lina, was,  “That  it  is  not  expedient  at  this  time  to  sus- 
pend the  0th  Article,”  etc.  There  is  not  a hint  in  any 
of  the  proceedings  that  there  was  any  moral  or  sectional 
question  involved  in  the  “extension  of  slavery.”  “The 
abstract  question  of  liberty  or  slavery,”  said  the  peti- 
tion of  the  Legislature,  “is  not  considered  as  involved 
in  a suspension  of  the  said  Article,  inasmuch  as  the 
number  of  slaves  in  the  United  States  would  not  be  aug- 
mented by  the  measure,”  etc.;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
the  negro  would  exchange  “a  situation  which  admits  not 
the  most  distant  prospect  of  emancipation  for  one  which 
presents  no  considerable  obstacles  to  his  wishes.” 

As  has  been  said,  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine  that 
“all  men  were  created  equal,”  did  not.  with  rare  ex- 
ceptions, include  the  negro  among  “men”.  They 


’State  Papers.  Fii’st  Session,  Ninth  Congress.  Volume  II. 

^This  movement  began  in  1802.  A delegate  convention  called  and 
presided  over  by  Governor  Harrison,  sent  a memorial  to  the  House 
of  Repi’esentatives;  and  John  Randolph,  chairman  of  a special  com- 
mittee to  which  the  matter  was  referred,  reported  against  suspend- 
ing the  anti-slavery  article  (March,  1803). — Hinsdale,  352. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


233 


framed  all  the  early  Constitutions  with  clauses  discrimi- 
nating against  him,  or  they  passed  laws  imposing  either 
direct  or  indirect  disabilities  on  him ; and  the  emanci- 
pated negro’s  social  status  was — and  is  now — about  the 
same  in  all  the  States.  But  the  number  of  persons  who 
believed  that  some  method  of  emancipation  ought  to 
have  been  adopted,  was  considerable  in  all  the  States; 
and  in  this  number  were  included  many  of  the  leaders 
in  church  and  state.  In  proof  of  this  the  figures  already 
given  will  suffice  for  the  so  called  Slave  States.  The  nor- 
mal rate  of  increase  of  the  negro  race,  per  decade,  has  been 
shown  to  be  13.51  per  cent;  whereas  the  rate  of  increase 
of  free  blacks  in  the  Southern  States  was  (from  32,636  in 
1790  to  61,21:1  in  ISOO)  more  than  87  per  cent  in  the 
first  census  decade,  (from  61,241  in  1800  to  108,265  in 
1810)  more  than  76  per  cent  in  the  second  decade,  and 
(from  108,265  in  1810  to  135,434  in  1820)  more  than  26 
per  cent  in  the  third  decade. 

Whatever  other  causes  may  have  contributed  to  this 
reduction  of  the  rate,  its  date  points  to  a new  danger 
whose  portentous  shadow  was  then  begining  to  fall  on 
the  South — the  determination  of  a powerful  party  in  the 
Northern  States  to  restrict  slavery  to  the  States  where 
it  promised  to  remain  permanent,  to  prevent  the  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  of  any  more  States  whose  interests 
would  be  identical  with  those  of  the  Southern  States, 
and  to  insure  to  the  Northern  States  the  unrestricted 
control  of  the  common  government  of  the  States.  ‘ 

This  determination,  which  had  its  beginning  in  the 

‘ These  agitators,  to  conceal  their  real  object,  put  on  the  garb  ot 
patriotism,  and  pretended  that  the  migration  of  Southern  men  with 
their  slaves  into  the  common  territory  of  the  States  would  endanger 
the  Union.  And  this  danger  to  the  Union  was  many  times  magni- 
fied when  Mrs.  Stowe  spread  the  slaves  all  over  the  country,  from 
the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific,  thus  diluting  the  slaves  from  45  to  15 
per  ten  square  miles.  “If,”  said  she  (Uncle  Tom’s  Cabin,  p.  74), 


234: 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


struggles  over  the  assumption  of  State  debts  and  the 
granting  of  bounties  to  certain  classes  in  the  Northeast- 
ern States,  manifested  itself  in  1820  as  a danger  to  the 
perpetuity  of  the  Union.  In  that  year  the  famous  Mis- 
souri question  arose  in  Congress,  which  was  settled  by 
the  so-called  Missouri  Compromise.  This  was  an  unwise 
surrender  of  the  South  to  the  demands  of  the  North; 
and  it  fell  on  the  ear  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  then  seventy- 
seven  years  of  age,  as  “a  firehell  in  the  night.’'  He 
saw  in  it  the  end  of  the  Union  of  the  Constitution. 

The  leaders  in  this  opposition  to  the  “extension  of 
slavery”  were  not  abolitionists.  They  belonged  to  the 
most  intelligent  class  of  people  in  the  New  England  and 
Middle  States ; and  they  would  have  scouted  a proposition 

“all  the  broad  land  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Pacific  becomes 
one  great  market  for  bodies  and  souls,  and  human  property  retains 
the  locomotive  tendencies  of  this  nineteenth  century,  the  trader 
and  catcher  may  yet  be  aiuong  our  aristocracy” — a probability 
which  had  long  before  become  a reality  in  Mrs.  Stowe's  section  of 
the  Union  through  the  gains  of  a business  in  which  the  trader  and 
catcher  were  far  more  brutal  than  Haley,  Loker,  and  Marks. 

What  their  real  object  was  is  candidly  acknowledged  by  Mont 
gomery.  He  says  on  page  334  of  his  American  History: 

“The  great  majority  of  the  Northern  people,  believing  slavery  to 
be  an  evil,  had  therefore,  two  chief  reasons  for  opposing  its  estab 
lishment  in  the  new  territory  west  of  the  Mississippi:  (1)  They 
thought  it  would  be  a serious  injury  to  that  part  of  the  country” 
(though  he  does  not  make  it  plain  how  such  a supposed  injury  to 
that  part  of  the  country  would  affect  the  people  of  the  North);  “(3) 
They  objected  to  it  oecause,  if  the  new  territory  should  be  admitted 
as  slave  States  the  South  would  thereby  gam  such  a great  number 
of  Representatives  in  Congress  that  it  would  have  a large  majority. 
That  section  could  then,  by  its  votes  strengthen  and  extend  slavery" 
(that  is,  spread  it  out  and  so  dilute  it  that  it  would  cease  to  be  an 
influential  factor  either  in  the  South  or  the  West),  “and  at  the  same 
time  make  laws  giving  it  power  to  import  all  kinds  of  manufactured 
goods  free” — that  is  to  say.  free  themselves  from  their  vassalage  to 
the  “protected”  and  bounty-fed  classes  in  the  North. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


235 


to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  ^ In- 
deed at  the  time  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  the  abo- 
litionists in  the  North  were  a small  and  discredited  fac- 
tion. Four  years  afterwards  (1824:)  William  Lloyd  Gar- 
rison was  writing  articles  for  the  Salem  (Mass.)  Gazette, 
“striving,”  says  Alden’s  Cyclopaedia,  “to  remove  the 
almost  universal  apathy  on  the  subject  of  slavery.” 
Fourteen  years  afterwards  the  house  of  Lewis  Tappan, 
a prominent  abolitionist  in  New  York  city,  was  attacked 
by  a mob,  and  its  contents  destroyed.  Fifteen  years 
afterwards  (1835)  Garrison  was  dragged  through  the 
streets  of  Boston  by  a mob  of  “gentlemen  of  property 

’ Montgomery  says  (page  197)  that  the  invention  of  the  cotton  gin 
put  a stop  to  the  discussion  of  slavery;  “for  now  the  Southern  plan- 
ters and  the  Northern  manufacturers  of  cotton  both  found  it  to  their 
interest  to  keep  the  negro  in  bondage,  since  by  his  labor  they  were 
rapidly  growing  rich.”  And  this  is  the  reason  given  by  Northern 
writers  and  politicians  (even  by  Mr.  Webster  who,  in  his  speech  in 
the  Senate,  March  7,  1850,  adopted  this  “cotton-gin”  theory),  why  a 
change  of  sentiment  took  place  in  the  South  in  regard  to  the  merits 
of  the  slavery  question.  But  there  is  very  much  of  ignorance  un- 
derlying the  theory.  The  discussion  of  slavery  was  hushed  in  States 
which  produced  no  cotton,  after  the  Southern  people  discovered 
what  was  the  real  purpose  of  the  “free  soilers”  and  the  abolition- 
ists. According  to  the  Census  of  1850  cotton  was  not  produced  in 
Maryland,  Virginia,  or  Missouri;  and  it  cut  no  figure  in  the  produc 
tions  of  Kentucky  (006  bales).  Indeed,  it  is  well  known  to  every- 
body who  does  not  confine  “the  South”  to  a narrow  strip  of  seacoast 
running  from  the  mouth  of  the  Cape  Fear  River  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Appalachicola,  that  the  production  of  cotton  extended  into  North 
Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Arkansas  by  very  slow  paces,  and  that 
long  before  it  became  an  important  crop  the  agitation  of  the  slavery 
question  had  ceased. 

In  support  of  this  “cotton-gin”  theory  Mr.  Webster,  in  the  speech 
referred  to,  made  this  astounding  assertion : 

“In  1802,  in  pursuit  of  the  idea  of  opening  a new  cotton  region,  the 
United  States  obtained  a cession  from  Georgia  of  the  whole  of  her 
western  territory,  now  embracing  the  rich  and  growing  States  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi.”  As  if  the  cession  of  these  lands  would 
change  the  soil  or  climate ! 


236 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


and  respectability,”  (quotation marks  Alden’s)'  And  in 
1837  Rev.  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy,  Presbyterian  minister, 
was  murdered  for  his  abolition  doctrines  by  a mob  in 
Alton,  Illinois.  The  state  of  public  sentiment  in  New 
England,  and  the  estimation  in  which  the  abolitionists 
were  held  “ by  gentlemen  of  property  and  respectabil- 
ity,” may  be  gathered  from  a sketch  of  the  life  of  Wen- 
dell PhillijDS  in  Alden’s  Cyclopaedia.  It  says:  “Admit- 
ted to  the  bar  in  1834 — when  he  was  twenty-three  years 
of  age^ — he  witnessed  * * the  dragging  of  Wil- 

liam Lloyd  Garrison  through  the  streets  by  a mob  of 
‘gentlemen  of  property  and  respectability.’  From  that 
day  he  avowed  the  anti-slavery  sentiments.'^  * He 
sacrificed  for  a despised  cause  all  the  advantages  of  his 
high  social  position,  fine  education  * * ; and  in 

1839  relinquished  the  profession  of  the  law  because  he 
would  not  act  under  an  attorney’s  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  with  its  guaranties  of 
slavery.  Plis  first  remarkable  speech  was  in  Fanenil 
Hall,  December  8,  at  a meeting  promoted  by  Dr.  Wil- 
liam E.  Channing.  to  denounce  the  murder  of  the  Rev. 
Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  Attorney-General  James 

T.  Austin  opposed  the  resolutions,  comparing  the  pro- 
slavery mob  to  Revolutionary  patriots.  * In 

1843 ’4  he  (Phillips)  was  prominent  in  denouncing  the 
compromises  of  the  United  States  Constitution”  (declar- 
ing it  to  be  “a  covenant  with  death  and  an  agreement 
with  hell”),  “and  then,  and  far  into  the  ‘fifties,’  show- 
ing serene  courage  in  speaking  holdly  in  the  face  of 
threatened  attacks  of  mobs,”  etc. 

This  man  and  his  sympathizers  were  avowed  advo- 
cates of  a dissolution  of  the  Union,  in  order  to  free  their 


'The  Legislatiire  of  Georgia  offered  a reward  of  §5,000  for  the  arrest 
and  conviction,  acccrding  to  the  laws  of  that  State,  of  William 
Lloyd  Garrison,  just  before  he  was  mobbed  in  Boston. 


THE  SOUTEt  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


237 


consciences  from  a sort  of  vicarious  remorse  for  the 
sin  of  slavery  in  the  South. ' 

But  a dissolution  of  the  Union  was  far  from  the  aims 
of  the  “free  soil”  agitators.  A dissolution  would  de- 
prive them  of  all  the  advantages  of  the  sectional  suprem- 
acy which  they  saw  in  their  reach.  Nor  v/ere  they  less 
strenuous  in  their  opposition  to  the  abolition  of  slavery 
for  the  reason  given  by  Montgomery,  and  for  another 
reason  which  can  be  found  in  a speech  delivered  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  March  31,  1897,  by  the  Hon. 
Joseph  H.  Walker,  of  Massachusetts.  He  criticised 
Southern  Statesmen  for  their  free-trade  opinions,  and, 
if  his  language  is  not  misunderstood,  he  was  following 
the  late  Mr.  Blaine  in  attempting  to  brand  as  three  cog- 
nate evils  slavery,  free-trade,  and  secession.  A portion 
of  his  text  was  a speech  deli  veered  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives in  1832  by  the  Hon.  George  McDuffie,  of 
South  Carolina.  Under  the  caption:  “Protection  de- 
manded to  give  us  the  control  of  the  home  market.”  he 
says;  “But  prosperity  did  come  to  the  North,  and  Mr. 
McDuffie,  feeling  that  a portion  of  the  profits  of  the  un- 
paid (slave)  labor  of  the  South  was  shared  by  the  North 
through  the  system  of  protection,  was  determined  * * 
to  deprive  the  North  of  its  prosperity,  that  the  South 

' In  Eli  Thayer’s  Kansas  Crusade  (1889),  page  108.  he  says:  “In  the 
Liberator  of  July  13,  1855,  there  is  the  following  record: 

“ ‘Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson  was  the  next  speaker.  His  decla- 
ration of  his  belief  in  the  certainty  of  the  dissolution  of  these  States, 
and  of  his  own  readiness  for  that  event,  met  with  the  general  and 
evidently  carefully  considered  assent  of  the  audience.’  ’’ 

And  this  Mr.  Higginson,  dear  reader,  was  Colonel  of  a regiment  of 
colored  troops  raised  in  South  Carolina;  was  wounded  at  Wiltown 
Bluff,  S.  C.,  in  1863;  and  is  now  beyond  question  receiving  a liberal 
pension  for  his  services  in  preventing  a “dissolution  of  these  States.” 


238 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


might  reach  the  whole  of  what  they  felt  to  be  their  every 
advantage  from  its  unpaid  labor  conditions.”^ 

No;  these  “gentlemen  of  property  and  respectability” 
not  only  felt  no  sympathy  for  the  abolitionists;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  they  preferred  that  slavery  in  the  South 
should  be  preserved,  their  only  ground  of  complaint 
against  the  Southerners  being  that  they  were  unwilling 
to  permit  a portion  of  the  profits  of  their  slave  labor 
to  be  sent  by  Federal  law  to  make  the  North  prosperous. 
Even  as  late  as  1860  they  declared  in  their  platform  that 
“the  right  of  each  State  to  order  and  control  its  own 
domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment  ex- 
clusively, is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which 
the  perfection  and  endurance  of  our  political  fabric  de- 
pends. ” 

The  act  of  Parliament  passed  August  28,  1833,  pro- 
viding for  the  emancipation  of  slaves  throughout  .the 
British  dominions,  and  appropriating  8100,000,000  to 
indemnify  the  slave-owners,  gave  new  life  to  the  little 
band  of  fanatics  in  the  Northern  States.  Garrison,  Phil- 
lips, Arthur  Tappan,  and  Lewis  Tappau  redoubled  their 
efforts  to  arouse  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery,  to  organize  societies  in  all  the  States, 
and  to  foment  that  zeal  for  reform  which,  as  usual,  be- 
came the  more  active  the  farther  it  was  from  tlie  evil  to 
be  reformed  and  the  more  dense  was  the  ignorance  of 
the  obstacles  to  be  removed.  They  agitated,  they  pub- 
lished circulars  and  addresses,  they  started  a “reform 
press,”  and  they  sent  lecturers  over  the  country  to 
awaken  an  interest  in  their  cause.  They  did  more;  they 
sent  insulting  circulars  to  Southern  gentlemen,  and  in- 
cendiary appeals  to  colored  persons  who  could  read,  their 


' Page  18  of  a pamphlet  copy,  for  which  this  ^^Tite^  is  indebted  to 
the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Walker. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


239 


names  being  furnished  to  the  agitators,  it  was  supposed, 
by  Yankee  peddlers  or  other  emissaries.  ‘ 

There  was  much  indignation  in  the  South;  the  gentle- 
man who  paid  25  cents  postage  (the  insolent  fellows 
ne\^er  prepaid  the  postage)  on  a package,  and  found  on 
opening  it  that  it  was  a bundle  of  insulting  circulars, 
was  in  no  amicable  frame  of  mind  toward  the  agita- 
tors ; and,  since  about  that  time  excitement  was  running 
high  because  of  acts  of  Congress  designed  to  confer  upon 
the  North  a share  of  the  profits  of  “the  unpaid  labor  of 
the  South,”  his  sense  of  wrong  was  doubly  inflamed. 
As  a result,  too,  of  the  slavery  agitation,  real  or  threat- 
ened servile  insurrections  threw  almost  every  neighbor- 
hood in  the  South  into  a fever  of  excitement.  In  South- 

’ In  his  seventh  annual  message,  December  2,  1835,  President  An- 
drew Jackson  referred  to  these  circulars,  etc.,  as  follows:  “I  must 
also  invite  your  attention  to  the  painful  excitement  produced  in  the 
South,  by  attempts  to  circulate,  through  the  mails,  inflammatory 
appeals  addressed  to  the  passions  of  the  slaves,  in  prints,  and  in  va- 
rious sorts  of  publications,  calculated  to  stimulate  them  to  insurrec 
tion,  and  to  produce  all  the  horrors  of  a servile  war.  * * 

“In  leaving  the  care  of  other  branches  of  this  interesting  subject  to 
the  State  authorities,  to  whom  they  properly  belong,  it  is  never- 
theless proper  for  Congress  to  take  such  measures  as  will  prevent 
the  Post  office  Department,  which  was  designed  to  foster  an  amica- 
ble intercourse  and  correspondence  between  all  the  members  of  the 
Confederacy,  from  being  used  as  an  instrument  of  an  opposite  char- 
acter. * * * 

“I  would,  therefore,  * * * respectfully  suggest  the  propriety  of 
pa.ssing  such  a law  as  will  lu-ohibit,  under  severe  penalties,  the  cir- 
culation in  the  Southern  States,  through  the  mail,  of  incendiary 
publications.”  etc. 

But  nothing  was  done.  The  report  of  the  committee  to  whom  The 
matter  was  referred,  submitted  to  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  Feb- 
ruary 4,  1836,  said:  * * * “The  question,  then,  is.  Has  Congress 
such  a right  ? — a question  of  vital  importance  to  the  slave-holding 
States.  < 

“After  examining  this  question  with  due  deliberation,  in  all  its 
bearings,  the  committee  are  of  opinion  * * » that  Congress  has 
not  the  right,”  etc. 


•240 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


ampton  County,  Virginia,  a band  of  slaves  under  the 
leadership  of  Nat  Turner  murdered  in  cold  blood  fifty- 
five  persons,  beginning  their  operations  on  Sunday, 
August  21,  1831.  Many  arrests  were  made  all  over  the 
South,  many  negroes,  some  of  them  possibly  innocent, 
were  tried  and  executed.  Six  were  hung  in  Wilming- 
ton, N.  0. 

The  dangers  to  the  Southern  people  revealed  by  this 
and  other  results  of  the  machinations  of  the  abolition- 
ists of  New  England,  aggravated  by  increasing  activity 
on  their  part,  not  only  silenced  the  sincere  opponents  of 
slavery  in  the  South  but  led  to  precautionary  measures 
which  were  regarded  by  many  as  too  severe,  inasmuch 
as  they  diminished  the  privileges  of  the  well-disposed  as 
well  as  the  vicious.  An  amendment,  for  example,  was 
added  to  the  Constitution  of  North  Carolina  in  1S35  dis- 
franchising free  persons  of  color;  the  Legislature  passed 
an  act  making  it  a misdemeanor  to  teach  a slave  to  read 
and  write  (except  figures);  and  other  disabilities  were 
imposed  on  all  colored  persons. 

It  strikes  us  of  to-day  as  a remarkable  suppre.ssiou  of 
sentiment  and  conviction  that  one  of  the  members  of 
the  Convention  which  amended  the  Constitution  of 
North  Carolina — the  late  distinguished  William  Gaston — 
had  given  utterance  to  the  following  before  the  literary 
societies  of  the  University  of  North  Carolina  on  .June 
20,  1832:  “On  you,  too,  will  devolve  the  duty  which 
has  been  too  long  neglected,  but  which  can  not  with 
impunity  be  neglected  much  longer,  of  providing  for 
the  mitigation,  and  (is  it  too  much  to  hope  for  North 
Carolina  ? ) for  the  ultimate  extirpation  of  the  worst  evil 
that  afflicts  the  Southern  part  of  our  Confederacy.  Full 
well  do  you  know  to  what  I refer,  for  bn  this  subject 
there  is,  with  all  of  us,  a morbid  sensitiveness  which 
gives  warning  of  even  an  approach  to  it.  Disguise  the 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


241 


truth  as  we  may  and  throw  the  blame  where  we  will,  it 
is  slavery,  which,  etc.  ITow  this  evil  is  to  he  encoun- 
tered, how  subdued,  is  indeed  a difficult  and  delicate  in- 
quiry, which  this  is  not  the  time  to  examine,  nor  the 
occasion  to  discuss.  I felt,  however,  that  1 could  not 
discharge  my  duty  without  referring  to  this  subject,  as 
one  which  ought  to  engage  the  prudence,  moderation, 
and  firmness  of  those  who,  sooner  or  later,  must  act 
decisively  upon  it.” 

But  even  Gaston’s  voice  was  hushed  m the  presence 
of  the  dangers  which  thickened  as  the  intemperate  zeal 
of  the  New  England  agitators  fonnd  more  and  more  in- 
vigorating nourishment  in  the  alarm  they  excited  in  the 
South. ' 

In  the  course  of  time  the  abolition  rabble  suspended 
their  efforts  for  the  immediate  emancipation  of  the 
slaves  in  the  South,  and  united  with  the  “free-soilers” 
in  the  work  of  “multiplying,  developing,  and  strength- 
ening the  North,”  with  the  ultimate  purpose  of  driving 
the  Southern  States  out  of  the  Union,  or  of  trampling 
on  the  Constitution  and  liberating  the  slaves  in  the 
South  by  fire  and  sword.  This  fusion  was  the  death 
knell  of  the  Union  of  the  Constitution. 

Then  “the  extension  of  slavery”  became  in  the  minds 
of  the  ignorant  a multiplying  of  the  number  of  slaves; 
and  the  fanatics  were  willing  to  take  Beecher’s  advice 
and  start  to  Kansas  with  “the  Bible  and  Sharpe’s  rifles.  ’ ’ 

Then,  too,  the  “campaign  liar” — it  was  campaign 
every  day  in  the  year — became  abundant;  and  the  con- 
test between  those,  on  the  one  hand,  who  insisted  on  a 
strict  observance  of  the  conditions  on  which  the  Union 
was  formed,  and  those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  held 
that  our  Federal  was  a National  Government,  with  noth- 

‘ See  Note  U. 


16 


242 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


ing  to  guide  it  except  its  own  discretion,  was  now  repre- 
sented to  Christendom  as  a contest  between  slavery  and 
anti-slavery.  Every  strict  constructionist  was  contemp- 
tuously thrust  into  the  “pro-slavery”  party,  including 
even  Thomas  Jefferson,  whose  election  to  the  Presidency 
in  1801  began  to  be  spoken  of  as  the  “advent  of  the  slave 
power.  And  such  was  the  success  crowning  their 
labors  that  by  1860  they  had  made  themselves  respecta- 
ble in  some  States  in  the  North,  and  in  Massachusetts, 
as  events  proved,  they  constituted  a majority  of  the 
people;  and  the  uninformed  were,  in  the  New  England 
States  at  least,  yielding  to  the  preaching  of  the  fierce 
fanatics,  and  accepting  their  assertions  that  the  strug- 
gle for  sectional  control  of  the  Federal  Government  was 
nothing  less  than  an  “irrepressible  conflict”  between 
liberty  and  slavery — between  the  “great  moral  ideas” 

‘Everybody  who  reads  knows  that  Mr.  .Jefferson  was  opposed  to 
slavery.  But  this  “slave  power”  fiction  can  be  found  in  any  mod- 
ern sketch  of  the  life  of  John  Adams  as  his  excuse  for  refusing  to 
extend  to  Mr.  Jefferson  the  courtesy  supposed  to  be  due  from  a retir- 
ing President  to  his  successor. 

Alden’s  Cyclopaedia  (Art.  John  Adams)  says  “The  slave  power 
was  also  beginning  to  be  a factor  in  domestic  politics,  under  the 
leadership  of  Jefferson,  and  so,  on  the  election  of  his  rival  to  the 
Presidential  chair,  Adams  vacated  the  office  without  even  waitmg 
to  see  his  successor  take  his  seat.”  And  yet  this  same  Cyclopcedia 
(Art.  Massachusetts)  says  that  the  nineteen  electoral  votes  of  Massa 
chusetts  in  1804  were  cast  for  Mr.  Jefferson. 

This  “slave  power”  falsehood  figures  also  in  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannic^,  Ninth  Edition,  with  American  Revisions  and  Additions 
Volume  I,  page  142.  Accounting  for  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Adams,  it 
says;  “Owing  to  this  division  of  his  own  friends,  rather  than  to  a 
want  of  public  confidence,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  four  years,  etc.. 
Mr.  Adams  was  not  reelected.  Perhaps  this  was  in  some  measure 
owing  to  the  iireponderance  of  the  slave  States,  in  which  Mr.  .Jeffer- 
son, his  rival,  and  a proprietor  of  slaves,  had  a fellow-feeling  among 
the  chief  cf  the  people.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


24:3 


of  the  North  and  one  of  the  “ twin  relics  of  barbarism  ” 
in  the  South. ' In  the  newspapers,  in  the  magazines,  in 
the  stump  speeches,  and  in  the  sermons  and  lectures, 
every  phase  of  slavery  was  discolored;  the  Southern 
slave-owner  was  represented  to  the  ignorant  as  a mons- 
ter ; and  the  humanity  which  the  most  sordid  self-interest 
would  dictate  was  denied  to  him.^  But  perhaps  the  most 
effective  appeal  to  the  laboring  class  was  the  picture  of 
the  slave-holder  as  an  idle  aristocrat  who  reveled  in  wealth 
at  the  expense  of  his  “unpaid”  labor ; and  whose  idleness 
gave  him  opportunities  of  devising  schemes  to  enable  the 
“slave  power”  to  inflict  untold  imaginary  evils  on  the 
North. 

The  charge  against  the  Southern  man  which  more 
effectually  than  any  other  wrought  on  the  sensibilities 
of  the  humane,  was  that  his  laborers  received  no 
“wages”;  that  they  worked  from  Monday  morning  till 

‘These  “great  moral  ideas”  were  gradually  embodied  in  the  pub 
lie  mind  into  a “higher  law”  than  the  Constitution,  that  instru- 
ment and  its  supporters  falling  into  discredit.  That  most  powerful 
of  all  the  arguments  of  the  abolitionists  (Uncle  Tom’s  Cabin),  whose 
dramatic  interest  caused  it  to  be  translated  into  more  languages 
than  any  other  work  written  in  the  English  language,  sneered  at 
the  Constitution  in  this  wise:  “So  spoke  this  poor,  heathenish  Ken 
tuckian,  Avho  had  not  been  instructed  in  his  constitutional  relations, 
and  consequently  was  betrayed  into  acting  in  a sort  of  Christianized 
manner,  which,  if  he  had  been  better  situated  and  more  enlight- 
ened, he  would  not  have  been  left  to  do.” — (P.  64). 

^ It  was  the  insolent  abuse  of  Senator  Butler  (in  his  absence)  by 
Senator  Charles  Sumner,  of  Massachusetts,  delivered  from  the  high 
perch  of  his  lofty  ignorance  of  the  history  of  his  own  State,  which 
caused  Representative  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina  (a  relative  of  But 
ler),  to  make  what  Northern  writers  call  a “murderous  assault”  on 
Mr.  Sumner. 

Mr.  Sumner  pretended  to  be  laid  up  for  three  years,  traveled  over 
Europe  exhibiting  his  sores,  posing  as  a martyr,  and  denouncing  the 
“barbarism  of  slavery.” 


•2ArA  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

Saturday  night  with  scant  food  and  no  wages.  And 
this  falsehood  became  imbedded  among  the  foundations 
on  which  so-called  “American  History”  has  been  built 
up.  The  truth,  however,  is  that  the  slave  was  cared  for 
from  infancy  to  old  age,  sick  or  well,  and  enjoyed  more 
of  the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  than,  with  ex- 
ceedingly rare  exceptions,  he  has  enjoyed  since  1865; 
and  taking  into  account  the  care  of  his  mother,  of  him 
as  an  infant,  as  a child,  and  as  an  old  and  helpless  man 
(including  losses  by  death),  it  is  quite  likely  that  the 
“wages”  paid  by  his  owner  were  equal  to  the  wages  re- 
ceived by  laborers  of  like  skill  in  the  Northern  States, 
while  his  hours  of  labor  were  shorter.  On  both  of  these 
points  the  testimony  of  the  New  York  World  is  worth 
recording.  Referring  to  the  strike  of  the  garment-mak- 
ers in  New  York  in  the  first  half  of  the  year  1897,  it 
said : ‘ • The  negro  slave  was  at  least  well  fed,  well  housed, 
well  clothed,  aud  not  overworked.  There  was  nowhere 
in  negro  slavery  such  cruelty,  such  want  or  squalid  and 
hopeless  poverty  as  that  which  an  inexorable  ‘economic 
law’  imposes  upon  the  jourueymen  tailors  who  are  just 
now  striking  for  the  right  to  keep  seal  and  body  to- 
gether. These  people  work  more  hours  in  the  day  than 
any  man  or  animal  can  endure.”' 

As  to  houses,  the  Springfield  (Mass.)  Republican, 
quoted  in  Public  Opinion.  December  ;17,  ISOd.  stated  that 
1,338,000  people  in  New  York  City  lived  in  39.138  tene- 
ment houses,  a fraction  over  31  persons  to  the  house — 
a “ tenement  house  being  defined  by  law."  says  Alden's 
Cyclopiedia,  “as  a house  occupied  by  three  or  more  fami- 
lies living  independently  * * * or  by  more  than 

two  families  on  a floor,”  etc.  “The  Health  Depart- 
ment.” says  this  Cyclopaedia,  “found  five  families  in  a 


From  Wilmington  (N.  C.)  Messenger  of  June  6.  1897. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


245 


room  12  by  12  feet  square;  another  family  paying  $8.50 
per  month  for  a room  7 by  7 feet  on  a top  floor.”  And. 
yet,  “in  1880,”  says  the  same  authority,  “the  average 
number  of  persons  to  a dv/elling  was  about  half  that  iu 
Brooklyn,  Boston  and  London.” 

On  the  general  subject  of  the  comparative  conditions 
of  the  “unpaid”  laborer  of  the  ante-bellum  South  and 
the  wage-earner  of  the  North,  let  us  hear  what  was  said 
by  the  Journal  of  the  Knights  of  Labor,  copied  in  Pub- 
lic Opinion.  February  28,  1895: 

“land  op  the  slave. 

“The  Eepublic  is  a delusion,  freedom  is  a dream,  and 
the  song  of  liberty  is  a funeral  dirge.  * * " The 

last  hope  of  the  poor  is  being  squeezed  out.  Autocrats 
rule,  rob,  and  revel.  Labor  is  hampered,  hungry,  and 
haggard.  All  the  bullets,  bayonets,  and  bludgeons  of  the 
country  are  centralized  around  stolen  dollars.  * * 

Sixty  million  voices  demand  justice  for  overworked  and 
underpaid  labor,”  etc. 

Such  a wail  never  went  up  from  the  “chattels”  of  the 
South ; and  yet  the  people  who  by  misgovernment  have 
tilled  the  land  with  traihps  (a  class  of  unfortunates 
never  heard  of  till  twelve  years  after  the  Government 
fell  exclusively  into  the  hands  of  “the  North”),*  and 
erected  a virtual  plutocratic  tyranny  over  these  once 
free  and  co-equal  sovereign  States,  are  demanding  the 
admiration  of  all  lovers  of  freedom  because  they  made  a 
freeman  of  the  negro  in  a land  where  he  is  denied  re- 
spectable employment  except  from  the  Southern  white 
man.  and  in  which  the  “humanitarians”  refuse  to  give 
him  control  of  even  a fourth-class  post-office  anywhere 
else  than  in  the  South! 


' See  Note  V. 


2i6 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Note  U. 

In  Virginia  the  anti-slavery  sentiment,  which  was  perhaps  more 
demonstrative  than  in  North  Carolina,  was  silenced  by  the  same 
causes.  Nat  Turner’s  insurrection  produced  a profound  impression, 
and  possible  dangers  it  foreshadowed  excited  the  emancipationists 
to  renewed  efforts.  “Men  began  to  think  and  reason  about  the  evils 
and  insecurity  of  slavery;  the  subject  of  emancipation  was  discussed 
both  publicly  and  priv^ately,  and  was  irrominently  introduced  into 
the  poijular  branch  of  the  Legislature  at  the  ensuing  session  of 
1831-’32.  * * * The  debate  which  sprang  up,  upon  the  abstract 

proposition  declaring  it  expedient  to  abolish  slavery,  was  character- 
ized by  all  the  growers  of  argument  and  all  the  graces  of  eloquence. 

* * * After  an  animated  contest,  the  question  was  settled  by 
a kind  of  compromise,  in  which  the  evils  of  slavery  were  distinctly 
recognized,  but  that  views  of  expediency  required  that  further  ac. 
tion  on  the  subject  should  be  postponed.  That  a question  so  vitally 
important  would  have  been  renewed  with  more  success  at  an  earlier 
subsequent  period,  seems  more  than  probable,  if  the  current  opin- 
ions of  the  day  can  be  relied  on;  but  there  were  obvious  causes  in 
operation  which  paralyzed  the  friends  of  abolition,  and  have  had 
the  effect  of  silencing  all  agitation  on  the  subject.  The  abolition- 
ists in  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States,  gradually  increasing  their 
strength  as  a party,  became  louder  in  their  denunciations  of  slavery, 
and  more  and  more  reckless  in  the  means  adopted  for  assailing  the 
Constitutional  rights  of  the  South.  The  open  and  avowed  security 
given  to  fugitive  slaves,  not  only  by  the  efforts  of  private  societies, 
but  by  public  official  acts  in  some  of  the  free  States,  together  with 
the  constant  circulation  of  incendiary  tracts,  calculated  to  endanger 
the  safety  of  slave-holding  communities,  have  awakened  a spirit  of 
proud  and  determined  resistance ; and  now  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
tell  when  the  passions  shall  hav^e  sufficiently  cooled  for  a calm  con- 
sideration of  the  subject.”* 

Note  V. 

In  pursuance  of  the  policy  to  “ multiply,  develop,  and  strengthen 
the  North,’’  the  Homestead  Act  of  May  20,  1862,  was  passed,  offer- 
ing extraordinary  inducements  to  foreigners  to  flock  to  the  shores 
of  the  Northern  States;  and,  as  if  this  were  not  enough,  an  act  was 
passed  on  July  4,  1864,  providing  that  foreigners  might  enter  into 
contracts  for  the  jjayment  of  their  passage  money  out  of  their  earn- 
ings, etc.,  after  arrival,  thus  establishing  the  “contract  labor”  sys- 
tem, which  in  after  years  “came  home  to  roost.” 

'Historical  Collections  of  Virginia  by  Henry  Howe,  published  in 
1845. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


247 


In  addition  to  these  public  acts,  agents  were  employed  to  bring 
over  foreigners  to  fill  up  the  ranks  of  the  armies,  to  swell  the  vol- 
ume of  business  for  the  steamship  lines  and  the  railroads,  and  to  set- 
tle on  the  lands  which  had  been  given  to  the  Pacific  railroads.  ‘ 

To  all  these  forces  must  be  added  the  demand  for  labor  to  fill 
army  contracts  at  “American  wages.” 

The  result  was  that  by  1865  the  cities,  the  towns,  the  thorough 
fares,  and  the  armies  had  drawn  from  the  old  world  a considerable 
fraction  of  its  enter2:)rising  poor  people ; and  the  stream  continued 
to  flow. 

But  after  a while  the  war  ended;  army  contracts  were  no  more ; 
the  troops  were  gradually  disbanded  as  they  ceased  to  be  needed  to 
keep  the  “rebels”  in  due  subjecion,  and  to  support  the  military 
despotisms  set  up  under  the  “reconstruction  measures”;  and  thou- 
•sands  of  natives  and  foreigners  found  themselves  without  employ- 
ment. 

Then,  for  the  first  time  in  these  States,  the  tramp  made  his  ap- 
pearance. 


^ The  building  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad,  which  was  com- 
pleted May  10,  1869,  was  accomplished  mainly  by  Chinese  laborers, 
the  demand  for  them  running  the  number  of  immigrants  from  3,867 
in  1867  to  10,684  in  1868,  and  14,902  in  1869.  In  well  informed  circles 
it  is  believed  that,  without  this  cheap  labor,  the  road  could  not 
have  been  built. 


248 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

‘ ‘ THE  SLAVE  POWER.  ’ ’ 

It  would  not  be  easy  to  find  in  the  history  of  contests 
between  nations  or  factions  of  men  any  epithet  more 
inexcusable,  or  around  which  more  misrepresentations 
have  clustered,  than  “the  slave  power.”  It  has  disfig- 
ured the  literature  of  the  Northern  States;  it  has  served 
up  there  as  the  most  effective  weapon  to  silence  any  man 
who  pleaded  for  justice  to  the  South;  and  during  the 
last  thirty-two  years  it  has  often  dared  to  show  its  hid- 
eous and  malignant  head  in  the  South. 

Let  us  review  the  so-called  historical  evidence  which 
is  supposed  to  establish  the  charge  involved  in  this 
phrase. 

1.  The  South,  by  threats  of  refusing  to  go  into  the 
Union  under  the  Constitution,  compelled  the  North  to 
consent  to  a continuance  of  the  African  slave  trade  till 
1808. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
from  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  made  some  such  threat : 
but  those  two  States  were  not  “the  South.”  And  it  is 
also  true  that  the  New  England  members,  as  is  else- 
where fully  explained,  readily  consented  to  the  demands 
of  those  two  States  as  an  equivalent  for  the  privilege 
granted  to  them  to  monopolize  the  carrying  trade.  This 
“bargain”  was  due  to  that  spirit  of  concession  manifested 
by  Rufus  King,  a new  Englander,  on  a different  subject.  ‘ 
He  “had  always  expected  that,  as  the  Southern  States 
are  the  richest,  they  would  not  league  themselves  with 
the  Northern,  unless  some  respect  were  paid  to  their 
superior  wealth.  If  the  latter  expect  those  preferential 
distinctions  in  commerce,  and  other  advantages  which 


^ Elliot’s  Debates,  Volume  V,  page  290. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  2i9 

they  will  derive  from  the  connection,  they  must  not 
expect  to  receive  them  without  allowing  some  advan- 
tages in  return.” 

2.  By  threats  of  some  sort  the  South  drove  the  North 
to  yield  to  the  demand  that  “three-fifths”  of  the  slaves 
should  he  counted  in  ascertaining  the  representative 
population  of  the  States,  so  as  to  give  the  South  a 
greater  relative  power  in  the  administration  of  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

This  charge  is  fully  met  by  the  records  of  the  Congress 
of  the  Confederation  and  of  the  Convention  of  1787. 
They  prove  that  it  is  a child  of  ignorance  or  malice. 

Under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  the  Congress 
(wherein  each  State  cast  one  vote)  possessed  no  power 
to  levy  taxes  on  the  people,  but  each  State  was  bound 
to  supply  the  treasury  by  taxes  collected  in  its  own 
borders  according  to  the  number  of  acres  of  land 
granted  to  or  surveyed  for  any  person,  etc.  But  for 
some  reason  this  basis  of  taxation  was  not  satisfac- 
tory; and  on  April  18,  1783,  some  amendments  to 
the  Articles  were  proposed  to  the  States,  one  of  which 
was  that  the  sum  to  he  furnished  by  each  State 
should  be  “in  proportion  to  the  whole  number  of  white 
and  other  free  citizens  and  inhabitants,  of  every  age, 
sex  and  condition,  including  those  bound  to  servitude 
for  a term  of  years,  and  three-fifths  of  all  other  persons 
not  comprehended  in  the  foregoing  description,  except 
Indians  not  paying  taxes,”  ^ etc. 

In  the  adjustment  of  this  ratio  there  was  much  differ- 
ence of  views.  The  purpose  was  to  ascertain  the  wealth- 
producing  power  of  each  State.  And  it  was  agreed  that 
a slave  was  not  equal  to  a white  man  in  this  respect. 
The  debate  (Elliot’s  Debates,  Vol.  5,  p.  79)  was  interest- 


1 Elliot’s  Debates,  Vohime  I,  page  94. 


250  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

ing,  as  showing  that  Northern  men  wished  to  include 
nearly  all  the  slaves.  A committee  which  had  had  the 
subject  under  consideration  reported  “that  two  blacks 
be  rated  as  one  freeman.” 

Mr.  Wolcott,  of  Connecticut,  was  for  rating  them  as 
“four  to  three.” 

Mr.  Carroll,  of  Maryland,  was  for  rating  them  as 
“four  to  one.” 

Mr.  Williamson,  of  North  Carolina,  said  “he  was  prin- 
cipled against  slavery;  and  that  he  thought  slaves  an 
encumbrance  to  society,  instead  of  increasing  its  ability 
to  pay  taxes.” 

Mr.  Higginson,  of  Massachusetts,  was  in  favor  of 
“four  to  three.” 

Mr.  Eutledge,  of  South  Carolina,  said,  “for  the  sake 
of  the  object,  be  would  agree  to  rate  slaves  as  two  to 
one,  but  he  sincerely  thought  three  to  one  would  be  a 
juster  proportioji.” 

Mr.  Holten,  of  Massachusetts,  was  in  favor  of  “four 
to  one.” 

Mr.  Osgood,  of  Massachusetts,  wms  for  “four  to  three.  ’ ' 

Mr.  Lee,  of  Virginia,  “thought  two  slaves  were  not 
equal  to  one  white  man.” 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  three-fifths  was  a larger  ratio  than 
the  Southern  Members  desired.* 

The  proposed  amendment  of  the  Articles  of  Confed- 
eration was  ratified  by  eleven  States,^  and  the  public 
mind  acquiesced  in  the  judgment  of  the  Congress  that,  in 
the  production  of  wealth,  five  slaves  were  equal  to  three 
white  men. 

Hence  the  Convention  of  1787,  when  it  came  to  imbed 
in  the  Constitution  the  doctrine  that  taxation  and  rep- 


^ See  Note  W. 

^ Delaware  and  South  Carolina  refused  to  ratify. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


251 


resen tation  ought  to  go  together,  provided  that  “repre- 
sentatives and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States”  according  to  the  basis  already  virtu- 
ally agreed  to. 

The  debate  on  fixing  a basis  of  representation  was  as 
interesting  as  that  on  the  basis  of  direct  taxes. 

“Mr.  Sherman,”  of  Connecticut,  “proposed”  (Elliot’s 
Debates,  Vol.  5,  p.  178)  “that  the  proportion  of  suffrage 
in  the  first  branch  (House  of  Eepresentatives)  should  be 
according  to  the  respective  numbers  of  free  inhabi- 
tants. 1 * * * 

‘ ‘ Mr.  Rutledge  proposed  that  the  proportion  of  suffrage 
in  the  first  branch  should  be  according  to  the  quotas  of 
contribution.  The  justice  of  this,  he  said,  could  not  be 
contested. 

“Mr.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  urged  the  same  idea; 
adding  that  money  was  power;  and  that  the  States 
ought  to  have  weight  in  the  Government  in  proportion 
to  their  wealth. 

“Mr.  King,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Mr.  Wilson,  of 
Pennsylvania,  in  order  to  bring  the  question  to  a point 
moved  ‘that  the  right  of  suffrage  in  the  first  branch  * * * 
ought  not  to  be  according  to  the  rule  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation — one  vote  to  each  State — but  according 
to  some  equitable  ratio  of  representation.’  * * * 

“Mr.  Dickinson,  of  Delaware,  contended  for  the 
actual  contributions  of  the  States,  as  the  rule,  etc.  By 


' The  opposition  of  New  Englanders  to  counting  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves  in  the  representative  population  brought  Mr.  Williamson,  of 
North  Carolina,  to  his  feet.  He  “reminded  Mr.  Gorham  (of  Massa 
chusetts)  that,  if  the  Southern  States  contended  for  the  inferiority 
of  blacks  to  whites  when  taxation  wms  in  view,  the  Eastern  States, 
on  the  same  occasion,  contended  for  their  equality.  El.  Deb.,  5,  296. 


252 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


thus  connecting  the  interests  of  the  States  with  their 
duty,  the  latter  would  he  sure  to  be  performed.  i * * * 

“On  the  question  for  agreeing  to  King’s  and  Wilson's 
motion  it  passed  in  the  affirmative.  Massachusetts. 
Connecticut,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  North  Carolina. 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye,  7;  New  York,  New  Jer- 
sey, Delaware,  no,  3;  Maryland,  divided. 

“It  was  then  moved  by  Mr.  Rutledge,  of  South  Caro- 
lina, and  seconded  by  Mr.  Butler,  to  add  to  the  words 
‘equitable  ratio  of  representation,'  at  the  end  of  the 
motion  just  agreed  to,  the  words  ‘according  to  the  quotas 
of  contribution.’ 

“On  motion  of  Mr.  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania,  seconded 
by  Mr.  Pinckney,  of  South  Carolina,  this  was  postponed 
in  order  to  add,  after  the  words  ‘equitable  ratio  of  rep- 
resentation,’ the  words  following — ‘in  proportion  to  the 
whole  number  of  white  and  other  free  citizens  and  in- 
habitants of  every  age,  sex  and  condition,  including 

' Mr.  Dickinson  here  hints  at  the  failure  of  some  of  the  States  to 
furnish  their  quotas  of  requisitions,  and  he  evidently  supposed  that 
under  the  new  Constitution  the  old  system  would  be  pursued.  This 
suppo-sition  seems  to  have  prevailed  throughout  the  States.  In  the 
North  Carolina  Convention  which  met  in  Eillsboro,'  Juh’  1.  1788, 
and  declined  to  carry  the  State  into  the  new  Union,  Mr.  Gowdy,  of 
Guilford  County,  objecting  to  the  plan  of  the  Constitution,  said; 
“Mr.  Chairman,  this  clause  of  taxation  will  give  an  advantage  to 
some  States  over  the  others.  It  will  be  oppresssive  to  the  Southern 
States.  Taxes  are  (to  be)  equal  to  our  representation.  To  augment 
our  taxes,  and  increase  our  burdens,  our  negroes  are  to  be  repre- 
sented. * * * I wish  not  to  be  represented  with  negroes  if  it  in 
creases  my  burdens.”  To  this  Mr.  Davie  replied  that  it  was  the 
“same  ])rinciple  (three- fifths  of  the  slaves)  which  was  proposed  some 
years  ago  by  Congress,  and  assented  to  by  twelve  of  the  States.” — 
Elliot’s  Debates,  4.  30. 

Another  objection  to  the  plan  was  that  there  would  be  two  sets  of 
tax-gatherers  in  every  State.  To  this  Mr.  Hamilton,  in  No.  XXX  of 
the  Federalist,  replied  that  if  Congress  collected  direct  taxes,  it 
would,  in  his  opinion,  “make  use  of  the  State  officers  and  State  regu- 
lations.” 


THE  MOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


l>53 


those  bound  to  servitude  for  a terra  of  years,  and  three- 
fifths  of  all  other  persons  not  comprehended  in  the  fore- 
going description,  except  Indians  not  paying  taxes,  in 
each  State’ — this  being  the  rule  in  the  act  of  Congress, 
agreed  to  by  eleven  States,  for  apportioning  quotas  of 
revenue  on  the  States,  and  requiring  a census  only 
every  five,  seven,  or  ten  years. 

“On  the  question  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Georgia,  aye,  9;  New  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware, no,  2.” 

This  was  in  committee  of  the  whole  House;  and  when 
Gorham,  of  Massachusetts,  reported  the  plan  to  the 
Convention,  and  Patterson,  of  New  Jersey,  objected  to 
it  on  the  ground  that  the  voting  ought  to  be  as  in  the 
old  Congress,  Mr.  Rufus  King  made  the  remarks  already 
quoted  in  another  connection. 

Thus  the  basis  of  taxation  agreed  to  by  eleven  States 
under  the  old  system  was  properly  adopted — on  a mo- 
tion made,  too,  by  a Northern  Member — as  the  basis  of 
representation  as  well  as  of  taxation  in  the  Constitu- 
tion ; and  nothing  short  of  stupidity  could  find  any  “slave 
power”  in  it. 

But  Horace  Greeley  found  it  (American  Conflict,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  4:3-J6).  He  utterly  ignores  (if  he  knew  anything 
about  it;  the  reason  for  counting  three-fifths  of  the 
slaves,  just  as  he  ignores  the  “bargain”  between  the 
New  England  M embers  and  those  from  Georgia  and 
South  Carolina  by  which  the  former  secured  “preferen- 
tial distinctions  in  commerce.”  He  says:  “If  slaves  are 
human  beings,  why  should  they  not  be  represented 
like  other  human  beings  ? " * * If,  on  the  other 

hand,  you  consider  them  property  * * * why  should 
they  be  represented  any  more  than  ships,  houses,  or  cat- 
tle? * * * * We  can  only  answer  that  slavery  and 


254 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


reason  travel  different  roads.  * * * The  Conven- 
tion, without  much  debate  or  demur,  split  the  differ- 
ence, by  deciding  that  the  basis  alike  of  representation 
in  Congress  and  of  direct  taxation,  should,”  etc. 

Referring  to  the  slave  trade  provision  he  represents 
Georgia  and  South  Carolina  as  threatening  “ Xo  slave 
trade,  no  Union!”  as  if  there  were  not  a Union  then 
existing,  of  which  they  were  members!  “But,”  he 
says,  “the  ultimatum  presented  by  the  still  slave-hungry 
States  of  the  extreme  South  was  imperative,  and  the 
necessity  of  submitting  to  it  was  quite  too  easily  con- 
ceded. Roger  Sherman,  of  Connecticut,  was  among 
the  first  to  admit  it.”  ^ 

3.  The  third  crime  charged  to  the  “slave  power”  is 
defined  thus  by  Greeley:  “At  length,  when  the  Consti- 
tution was  nearly  completed,  slavery,  through  its  at- 
torney, Mr.  Butler  of  South  Carolina,  presented  its  little 
bill  for  extras.  Like  Oliver  Twist,  it  wanted  ‘some 
more.  ’ Its  new  demand  was  that  slaves  escaping  from 
one  State  into  another,  might  be  followed  and  legally 
claimed.  The  requirement,  be  it  observed,  was  entirely 
outside  of  any  general  and  obvious  necessity.  Xo  one 
could  pretend  that  there  was  anything  mutual  in  the 
obligation  it  sought  to  impose.  * * * The  old  Con- 

federation had  known  nothing  like  it ; yet  no  one  as- 
serted that  the  want  of  an  interstate  law  was  among 
the  necessities  or  grievances  which  had  impelled  the  as- 
sembling of  this  Convention,  ’ ’ etc. 

The  “old  Confederation  ” had  knotvn  something  like 
it,  and  the  very  year  when  Mr.  Butler  presented  his 
“little  bill”  ( July  13),  the  Congress  of  the  Confedera- 

* Greeley  seems  to  have  been  laboring  under  Ihe  delusion  that  the 
North  had  been  appointed  by  some  competent  authority  to  prohibit 
the  importation  of  slaves  into  the  Southern  States,  and  that  Geor- 
gia and  South  Carolina,  by  threats  of  “Disunion.”  frightened  it  into 
concessions  ! 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


255 


tion  added  this  proviso  to  the  anti-slavery  Article  (the 
Gthl  in  the  Ordinance  for  the  government  of  the  North- 
west Territory:  “That  any  person  escaping  into  the 
same,  from  whom  labor  or  service  is  lawfully  claimed 
in  any  one  of  the  original  States,  such  fugitive  may  be 
lawfully  reclaimed,  and  conveyed  to  the  person  claim- 
ing his  or  her  labor  or  service  as  aforesaid.” 

So  that  Butler’s  proposition  was  simply  to  extend  this 
provision  to  the  States;  and  the  propriety  of  doing  so 
seems  to  have  been  questioned  by  nobody.  Greeley, 
himself,  quoting  from  Madison’s  Papers,  Vol.  3,  pp.  145 
and  146,  shows  in  a footnote  that  Butler’s  motion  w^as 
agreed  to  unanimously — “nem.  con”.,  as  Madison  wrote 
it.  ’ 

4.  The  “slave  power”  acquired  Louisiana  for  the  un- 
worthy purpose  of  expanding  itself  and  insuring  its  do- 
minion over  the  Union. 

Mr.  Greeley  embodies  this  charge  in  the  following- 
passage,  Vol.  I,  p.  354:  “ ‘Why  can’t  jmu  let  slavery 
alone  V’  was  imperiously  or  querulously  demanded  at  the 
North” — by  those,  he  means,  who  believed  that  the 
Constitution  ought  to  have  been  respected — “through- 
out the  long  struggle  preceding  that  bombardment  (Sum- 
ter), by  men  who  should  have  seen,  but  would  not,  that 


' “It  was  a matter  of  common  practice  to  return  fugitives  befoi’e 
the  Constitution  was  formed.  Fugitive  slaves  from  Virginia,  to 
Massachusetts  were  restored  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  At 
that  day  there  was  a great  system  of  apprenticeship  at  the  North, 
and  many  apprentices  at  the  North,  taking  advantage  of  circum- 
stances and  of  vessels  sailing  South,  thereby  escaped;  and  they  were 
restored  on  proper  claim  and  proof.  That  led  to  a clear,  express, 
and  well  defined  provision  in  the  Constitution,'’  etc. — Webster’s 
Reception  Address  at  Buffalo,  May  22,  1851. 

So  it  seems  that  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  applied  to  fugi 
tive  apprentices  (white  persons)  as  well  as  to  fugitive  slaves;  and  all 
the  talk  about  avoiding  the  use  of  the  word  slave  in  the  Constitu 
tion  goes  for  nothing. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


25f) 


slavery  never  let  the  North  alone,  nor  thought  of  so 
doing.  ‘Buy  Louisiana  for  us!’  said  the  slave-holders. 
‘With  pleasure.’  ‘Now  Florida.’  ‘Certainly,’  ” etc. 

This  charge  is  as  baseless  as  any  of  the  preceding ; and 
Mr.  Greeley’s  “Slavery  never  let  the  North  alone”  is  not 
only  baseless,  but  silly.  The  purchase  of  Louisiana  was 
negotiated  by  Mr.  Jefferson,  who  was  a pronounced  op- 
ponent of  slavery,  and  for  reasons  which  Mr.  Greeley 
had  no  excuse  for  not  knowing. 

The  subject  is  quite  fully  discussed  in  the  Statesman’s 
Manual,  Vol.  I,  pp.  232-1:0 — a work  which  seems  never 
to  seek  opportunities  of  commending  Southern  men  or 
measures. 

During  the  session  of  Congress  which  closed  on  March 
3,  1803,  an  act  was  passed  authorizing  the  President  to 
call  upon  the  Governors  of  “such  States  as  he  might 
deem  expedient,  for  a detachment  of  militia,  not  exceed- 
ing 80,000,  or  to  accept  the  services  of  any  corps  of  vol- 
unteers, in  lieu  of  militia,  for  a term  of  twelve  months’’ ; 
and  $25,000  were  appropriated  for  the  erection  of  arse- 
nals on  the  w’-esteru  waters. 

“There  was  at  this  time  much  apprehension  of  a war 
with  Spain,  which  induced  Congress  to  take  the  meas- 
ures of  precaution  above-mentioned.  The  disputes  with 
the  Spanish  Government  I’espectiug  the  southwestern 
boundary  line  of  the  United  States,  and  the  right  of 
navigating  the  Mississippi,  had  often  caused  difficulties 
between  the  people  of  the  west  and  southwest  and  the 
Spanish  authorities  and  inhabitants  of  the  Spanish  ter- 
ritories. ” In  1802  it  was  learned  that  by  a secret  treaty 
Spain  had  in  1800  ceded  Ijouisiana  to  France.  “By  a 
treaty  with  Spain,  in  1795,  that  Government  had  granted 
to  the  United  States  the  right  of  deposit  at  New  Or- 
leans for  three  years,  after  which  the  privilege  was 
either  to  be  continued,  or  an  equivalent  place  assigned 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  257 

on  another  part  of  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi.  In  Oc- 
tober, 1802,  the  Spanish  intendent,  by  proclamation, 
declared  that  the  right  of  deposit  at  New  Orleans  no 
longer  existed. 

“This  measure  caused  much  excitement  among  the 
people  of  the  western  States  and  Territories  in  the  val- 
ley of  the  Mississippi.’'  The  excitement  increased  when 
those  people  heard  of  the  secret  treaty  with  France,  and 
had  reason  to  believe  the  suspension  had  been  ordered 
by  the  French  Oovernment. 

Mr.  Jefferson,  in  view  of  the  supposed  well-founded 
opinion  that  a French  army  was  coming  over  to  take 
possession  of  Louisiana,  wrote  to  Mr.  Livingston,  Uni- 
ted States  Minister  to  France,  that  if  this  were  done,  the 
United  States  must  become  allies  of  Great  Britain  and 
antagonists  of  France.  “He  then  suggests,  however, 
that  if  France  considers  Louisiana  as  indispensable  to 
her  interests,  she  may  still  cede  to  the  United  States  the 
Island  of  New  Orleans.  * * * That  this  cession 

would,  in  a great  degree,  remove  the  causes  of  irrita- 
tion, ” etc. 

Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  contemplate  the  cession  of  the 
whole  of  Louisiana  Territory;  this  was  a proposition  of 
Napoleon  himself.  Aud  not  even  the  X-rays  can  reveal 
any  “slavery”  in  the  transaction.  There  is  no  hint  of 
such  a reason  for  the  purchase  in  the  Statesman’s  Man- 
ual, nor  anywhere  else,  except  in  the  brain  of  a mod- 
ern statesman  of  the  Greeley  type. 

As  to  Florida,  if  it  was  purchased  to  strengthen  the 
“slave  power,”  it  is  remarkable  that  that  power  did  not 
secure  two  Senators  in  Congress  by  erecting  all  or  a part 
of  the  Territory  into  a State  until  18f5 — twenty-six 
years  after  the  purchase.  The  population  in  1830  was 
nearly  36,000,  or  about  7,000  more  thaiU  that  of  Ne- 


17 


258 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


braska  when  Mr.  Greeley’s  political  sympathizers  made 
a State  of  it. 

But  Mr.  Greeley  wished  to  helahor  the  South,  and  he 
was  not  scrupulous  in  selecting  w^eapons. 

5.  The  “slave  power”  annexed  Texas  for  the  purpose 
of  strengthening  itself. 

There  may  be  some  truth  in  this  charge;  but  possibly 
there  were  good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  the  annexa- 
tion, aside  from  any  party  or  sectional  advantage.  The 
population  of  Texas  was  composed  almost  entirely  of 
emigrants  from  the  States  of  the  Union ; they  were 
anxious  for  some  sort  of  an  alliance  with  the  United 
States  as  a shield  against  aggressions  from  Mexico;  and 
the  election  of  Mr.  Polk  on  an  annexation  platform  re- 
moves any  suspicion  of  intrigue  on  the  part  of  the  ".slave 
power.”  The  platform  declared  for  "the  re-annexation 
of  Texas  at  the  earliest  practicable  period" ; and  Mr. 
Polk  received  the  electoral  votes  of  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire, New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and 
Michigan  (Benton,  2,  625) — States  wHich  certainly  were 
not  favorable  to  an  expansion  of  the  “slave  power." 

But  if  we  grant  that  the  motive  was  solely  what  the 
traducers  of  the  South  insist  it  was,  the  necessit}'  for 
self-defense  against  the  "eating  out"  of  their  substance 
by  the  commercial  and  manufacturing  classes  in  the 
Northeastern  and  Middle  States  and  the  squandering  of 
the  jji'opeity  helonging  to  all  the  States,  was  a sufficient 
justification. 

6.  The  "slave  power"  trampled  on  a sacred  compact 
which  it  had  made  with  “freedom" — the  so-called  Mis- 
souri Compromise;  or,  in  the  words  of  Eli  Thayer, 
“ventured  foolishly  to  overthrow  a time-honored  com- 
pact and  subject  herself  to  a charge  of  bad  faith."  ‘ 


' Kansas  Crusade,  page  ‘2‘2. 


■THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  259 

It  would  be  a long  and  tedious  work  to  show  by  re- 
viewing acts  of  Congress  the  utter  groundlessness  of  this 
accusation ; and  the  reader  shall  not  be  asked  to  do  more 
than  weigh  the  evidence  presented  by  a few  decisive 
facts. 

a.  The  Constitution  conferred  on  the  Congress  no 
power  over  slavery  in  any  of  the  territory  “ belonging 
to  the  United  States.” 

b.  Article  III  of  the  treaty  with  France  stipulated 
that  “the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  territory  shall  be  in- 
corporated in  the  Union  of  the  United  States,  and  ad- 
mitted as  soon  as  possible  according  to  the  principles  of 
the  Federal  Constitution  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the 
rights,  advantages,  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States;  and.  in  the  meantime,  they  shall  be 
maintained  and  protected  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their 
liberty,  property,  and  the  religion  which  they  profess.”  ‘ 

c.  African  slavery  existed  in  the  Louisiana  Territory^ — 
slaves  were  property — at  the  time  of  the  treaty  of  cession. 
Hence,  since  treaties  are  declared  to  be  a portion  of 
the  “supreme  law  of  the  land,”  any  interference  of  the 
Congress  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  said  Ter- 
ritory, was  a double  violation  of  “law”;  and  was,  ipso 
facto,  null  and  void,  or,  as  Brightley's  Digest,  Vol.  I, 
p.  H47,  says  in  a footnote,  was  “null  and  void,  ah  in- 
cepto.  ” 

But  if  it  had  been  a valid  law,  the  charge  of  “bad 
faith”  on  the  part  of  the  South  was  without  founda- 
tion, for  the  following  reasons : 

a.  The  Missouri  Compromise  was  section  5 of  the  Act 
of  March  6,  1820,  the  1st  section  of  which  authorized 
the  people  to  form  a State  Constitution;  and  declared 
that  “the  said  State,  when  formed,  shall  be  admitted 


* United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Volume  VIII,  .page  202. 


260 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  ' 


into  the  Union  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,  in  all  respects  whatsoever.” 

b.  The  people,  thereupon,  proceeded  to  form  a Con- 
stitution, organize  a State  government,  and  elect  all  nec- 
essary officials,  including  Presidential  Electors. 

c.  But  the  restrictionists  repudiated  the  “time-hon- 
ored compact”  at  the  next  session  of  Congress;  they  re- 
fused to  permit  Missouri’s  electoral  vote  to  be  counted, 
or  to  accord  to  her  any  of  the  privileges  of  a member  of 
the  Union;  and  she  was  admitted  into  the  Union  Aug- 
ust 21,  1821,  by  an  act  which  was  opposed  almost  unani- 
mously by  the  restrictionists,  the  vote  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives  being  87  to  81. 

There  was,  therefore,  no  compromise  between  the 
North  and  the  South  which  any  code  of  morals  recog- 
nized among  sane  men  would  hold  to  be  binding  on  the 
South.  The  restrictionisis  did  not  agree  to  permit  Mis- 
souri to  co)ae  into  the  Union  as  a Stave  Stcde  on  condi- 
tion that  the  Sonth  tcoidd  consent  to  recognize  the  par- 
cd let  of  36  degrees  and  30  minutes  as  the  boundary  he- 
tween  slavery'’'  and  '■U't'^^dom"  in  the  territory  west 
of  the  Mississippid 

Many  other  accusations  have  been  brought  against 
the  “slave  power” : but  they  belong  to  that  class  of  in- 
dictments which  impose  on  the  accused  the  necessity  of 
proving  a negative.  Hence  w^e  may  pass  them  by  as 
not  worthy  of  notice. 

Such,  dear  reader,  w^ere  the  principal  weapons  in  the 
armory  of  the  South’s  traducers  during  all  the  ante-bel- 
lum days ; and  being  regarded  as  the  ravings  of  igno- 

^ The  whole  subject,  with  references  to  authorities,  is  fully  pre- 
sented in  Stephens’s  Pictorial  History  of  the  United  States:  and  the 
dates  of  the  so-called  Missouri  Compromise,  and  of  the  act  to  admit 
Missouri  into  the  Union  can  be  found  on  page  647  of  Brightley's 
Digest,  Volume  I. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


261 


rant  fanatics,  not  deserving  of  respectful  refutation,  they 
passed  into  history.  They  stand  as  history  to-day,  sup- 
plemented by  such  choice  selections  as  “ti’aitor,”  “oli- 
garchy,” “chivalry,”  “conspiracy,”  “insurrection,” 
etc.,  etc.,  “rebel”  being  regarded  as  a mild  term. 

But  among  all  the  charges  against  the  “slave  power” 
the  most  ignorant  and  malignant  of  the  enemies  of  the 
South  never  stultified  themselves  by  including  the 
charge  that  the  South  ever  attemj)ted  to  use  the  machinery 
of  the  Federal  Government  to  enrich  herself  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  North  ! She  never  asked  for  the  privilege 
of  compelling  the  North  to  pay  from  20  to  200  per  cent 
for  the  products  of  her  fields  and  forests  more  than  the 
price  of  similar  products  of  foreign  countries;  she  never 
asked  for  bounties  to  any  class  of  her  laborers;  she 
never  asked  for  any  undue  participation  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  public  lands  or  the  proceeds  of  their  sales; 
she  never  asked  for  any  monopolistic  privileges;  and 
she  never  asked  for  any  unfair  advantages  to  her  sol- 
diers in  the  distribution  of  pensions.  Her  hands  are 
clean — admitted  to  he  so  by  the  silence  of  her  enemies, 
even  if  the  evidence  furnished  by  public  records  were 
destroyed. 


Note  W. 

The  first  movement  ever  made  toward  a disruption  of  the  Union 
was  made  by  Massachusetts. 

The  plan  of  chiinging  the  basis  of  the  contributions  of  the  States 
from  land  to  population  being  in  contemplation  in  the  earlj^  months 
of  1783.  it  was  the  desire  of  the  Northeastern  Members  to  include 
all  or  nearly  all  of  the  slaves,  while  the  Southern  Members  urged 
that  not  even  half  of  them  should  be  included.  The  committee 
appointed  to  report  a plan  advised  that  “two  blacks  be  rated  as  one 
freeman.”  But  “for  the  sake  of  the  object”  the  South  yielded  to 
the  rate  of  three- fifths,  the  first  vote  on  this  rate  being  as  follows: 

New  Hampshire,  aye;  Massachusetts,  divided;  Rhode  Island,  no; 
Connecticut,  no;  New  Jersey,  aye;  Pennsylvania,  aye;  Maryland, 
aye;  Virginia,  aye;  North  Carol! aa,  aye;  South  Carolina,  aye. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


262' 

The  next  vote  was  on  a motion  of  Bland,  of  Virginia,  to  strike  out 
the  clause  as  amended,  and  the  Slates  voted  as  follows; 

New  Hampshire,  aye;  New  Jersey,  aye:  Pennsylvania,  aye;  Mary 
land,  aye;  Virginia,  aye;  North  Carolina,  aye;  Massachusetts,  no; 
Rhode  Island,  no;  Connecticut,  no;  Delaware,  no;  South  Caro 
lina,  no. 

“On  April  1 Mr.  Gorham  (Mas.sachusetts)  called  for  the  order  of 
the  day,  to- wit:  the  repoi't  on  revenue,  etc.,  and  observed,  as  a co- 
gent reason  for  hastening  that  business,  that  the  Eastern  States,  at 
the  invitation  of  Massachusetts,  were,  with  New  York,  about  to  form 
a convention  tor  regulating  matters  of  common  concern,  and  that  if 
any  plan  should  be  sent  out  by  Congress  during  their  session,  they 
would  proT)ably  cooperate  with  Congress  in  giving  effect  to  it.’\ 

This  was  a threat  of  secession  from  the  Confederacy,  and  it  was 
intended  to  coerce  the  South  into  compliance  with  the  demands  of 
Massachusetts.  It  was  so  understood  by  Mr.  Mercer,  of  Virginia, 
. who  “expressed  great  disquietude  at  this  information:  considered  it 
as  a dangerous  precedent;  and  that  it  behooved  the  gentleman  to 
explain  fully  the  objects  of  the  convention,  as  it  would  be  necessary 
for  the  Southern  States  to  be,  otherwise,  very  circumspect  in  agree- 
ing to  any  plans  on  a supposition  that  the  genei-al  Confederacy  was 
to  continue.” 

Mr.  White,  of  New  Hampshire,  informed  the  Members  that  his 
State  had  declined  to  accede  to  the  plan  of  a convention  on  foot. 

ilr.  Hamilton,  who  had  been  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken, 
moved  a reconsideration,  and  was  seconded  by  Mr.  O.sgood.  “Those 
who  voted  differently  from  their  former  votes  were  influenced  by 
the  conviction  of  the  necessity  of  the  change,  and  despair  on  both 
sides  of  a more  favorable  rate  of  slaves.”  The  rate  of  three  fifths 
was  agreed  to  without  opposition.  * 


Elliot’s  Debates,  Volume  V,  pages  79-81. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


2fl?> 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

MR.  BENTON’S  VIEWS. 

It  is  natural  for  most  readers  to  suspect  that  a South- 
erner who  has  taken  a lively  interest  during  the  last 
fifty  years  in  the  controversy  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  is  unable  to  discuss  with  fairness  and  im- 
partiality the  causes  of  Southern  discontent;  and  that 
in  the  preceding  chapters  the  motives  of  men  have  been 
unjustly  impugned,  if  not  misunderstood,  and  the  con- 
sequences of  their  acts  exaggerated. 

To  allay  this  susiiicion  as  far  as  the  corroborative  tes- 
timony of  an  undoubtedly  impartial  writer  can  do  it, 
the  views  of  Mr.  Benton  are  here  presented.  What  he 
says  is  valuable  in  another  respect ; it  shows  that  even 
Thomas  H.  Benton  often  voted  for  measures  which  “his 
judgment  disapproved  and  his  feelings  condemned.” 

The  following  extracts  are  taken  from  Chapter  XXXII, 
vol.  2,  of  his  THIRTY  YEARS  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SEN- 
ATE. After  stating  in  general  terms  the  causes  of  South- 
ern discontent,  he  says : 

“The  writer  of  this  view  sympathized  with  that  com- 
plaint ; believed  it  to  be,  to  much  extent,  well  founded ; 
saw  with  concern  the  corroding  eflect  it  had  on  the  feel- 
ings of  patriotic  men  of  the  South;  and  often  had  to 
lament  that  a sense  of  duty  to  his  own  constituents  re- 
quired him  to  give  votes  which  his  judgment  disap- 
proved and  his  feelings  condemned.  This  complaint 
existed  when  he  came  into  the  Senate  (1821);  it  had,  in 
fact,  commenced  in  the  first  years  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment (i.  e.,  under  the  Constitution),  at  the  time  of 
the  assumption  of  the  State  debts,  the  incorporation  of 
the  first  national  bank,  and  the  adoption  of  the  funding- 
system  ; all  of  which  drew  capital  from  the  South  to  the 


264 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


North.  It  continued  to  increase;  and,  at  the  period 
(1838)  to  which  this  chapter  relates,  it  had  reached  the 
stage  of  an  organized  sectional  expression  in  a volun- 
tary convention  of  the  Southern  States.  It  had  often 
been  expressed  in  Congress,  and  in  the  State  Legisla- 
tures, and  habitually  in  the  discussions  of  the  people; 
but  now  it  took  the  more  serious  form  of  joint  action, 
and  exhibited  the  spectacle  of  a part  of  the  States  as- 
sembling sectionally  to  • complain  formally  of  the  un- 
equal, and  to  them,  injurious  operation  of  the  common 
government,  established  by  common  consent  for  the 
common  good,  and  now  frustrating  its  object  by  de- 
parting from  the  purposes  of  its  creation.  * * * 

“It  (the  convention)  met  at  Augusta,  Georgia,  and 
afterwards  at  Charleston,  South  Carolina;  and  the  evil 
complained  of  and  the  remedy  proposed  were  strongly 
set  forth  in  the  proceedings  of  the  body,  and  in  addresses 
to  the  people  of  the  Southern  and  Southwestern  States. 
The  changed  relative  condition  of  the  two  sections  of 
the  country,  before  and  since  the  Union,  was  shown  in 
their  general  relative  depression  or  prosperity  since  that 
event,  and  especially  in  the  reversed  condition  of  their 
respective  foreign  import  trade.  i The  con- 

vention referred  the  effect  to  a course  of  Federal  legis- 
lation unwarranted  by  the  grants  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  objects  of  the  Union,  which  subtracted  capital 
from  one  section  and  accumulated  it  in  the  other;  pro- 
tective tariff,  internal  improvements,  pensions,  national 
debt,  two  national  banks,  the  funding  system  and  the 
paper  system;  the  multiplication  of  offices,  profuse  and 
extravagant  expenditure,  the  conversion  of  a limited 
into  an  almost  uDlimited  government  ; and  the  substi- 
tution of  power  and  splendor  for  what  was  intended  to 


' The  reader  is  requested  to  bear  in  mind  that  "slavery”  and  "free- 
dom” cut  no  fig-urein  this  convention. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


265 


be  a simple  and  economical  administration  of  that  part 
of  their  affairs  which  required  a general  head. 

“These  were  the  points  of  complaint — abuses — which 
had  led  to  the  collection  of  an  enormous  revenue,  chiefly 
levied  on  the  products  of  one  section  of  the  Union  and 
mainly  disbursed  in  another  * Unhappily 

there  was  some  foundation  for  this  view  of  the  case; 
and  in  this  lies  the  root  of  the  discontent  of  the  South 
and  its  dissatisfaction  with  the  Union.  * * 

“What  has  been  published  in  the  South  and  adverted 
to  in  this  view  goes  to  show  that  an  incompatibility  of 

interest  between  the  two  sections,  though  not  inherent, 

• 

has  been  produced  by  the  working  of  the  government — 
not  its  fair  and  legitimate,  but  its  perverted  and  un- 
equal working.  * * 

“The  conventions  of  Augusta  and  Charleston  proposed 
their  remedy  for  the  Southern  depression,  and  the  com- 
parative decay  of  which  they  complained.  It  was  a fair 
and  patriotic  remedy — that  of  becoming  their  own  ex- 
porters. and  opening  a direct  trade  in  their  own  staples 
between  Southern  and  foreign  ports. ' It  was  recom- 
mended— attempted — failed.  Superior  advantages  for 
navigation  in  the  North — greater  aptitude  of  its  people 
for  commerce — established  course  of  business — accumu- 
lated capital— continued  unequal  legislation  in  Cougress ; 
and  increasing  expenditures  of  the  government,  chiefly 
disbursed  in  the  North,  and  defect  of  seamen  in  the 
South  (for  mariners  can  not  be  made  of  slaves),  all  com- 
bined to  retain  the  foreign  trade  in  the  channel  which 
had  absorbed  it;  and  to  increase  it  there  with  the  in- 
creasing wealth  and  population  of  the  country,  and  the 
still  faster  increasing  extravagance  and  profusion  of  the 
government.  * * * 

' This  was  proposed  after  the  adoption  of  the  compromise  tariff, 
and  when  it  was  supposed  that  “protection”  was  dead. 


2*i0  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

“This  is  what  the  dry  and  naked  figures  show.  To 
the  meraoiy  and  imagination  it  is  worse  ; for  it  is  a tra- 
dition of  the  colonies  that  the  South  had  heeu  the  seat 
of  wealth  and  happiness,  of  power  and  opulence;  that 
a rich  population  covered  the  land,  dispensing  a baronial 
hospitality,  and  diffusing  the  felicity  which  themselves 
enjoyed;  that  all  was  life,  and  joy,  and  affluence  then. 
And  this  tradition  was  not  without  similitude  to  the 
reality,  as  this  writer  can  testify;  for  he  was  old  enough 
(born  1782)  to  have  seen  (after  the  Revolution)  the  still 
surviving  state  of  Southern  colonial  manners,  wdien  no 
traveler  was  allow^ed  to  go  to  a tavern,  but  was  handed 
over  from  family  to  family  through  entire  States:  when 
holidays  were  days  of  festivity  and  expectation,  long- 
prepared  for.  and  celebrated  by  master  and  slave  with 
music  and  feasting,  and  great  concourse  of  friends  and 
relatives;  when  gold  was  kept  in  desks  or  chests  .after 
the  downfall  of  continental  paper)  and  weighed  in 
scales,  and  lent  to  neighbors  for  short  terms  without 
note,  interest,  witness,  or  security;  aud  on  bond  and 
laud  security  for  long  years  aud  lawful  usage;  and 
when  petty  litigation  was  at  so  low  an  ebb  that  it  re- 
quired a fine  of  foi  ty  pounds  of  tobacco’  to  make  a man 
serve  as  constable. 

“The  reverse  of  all  this  was  now  seen  and  felt.  " ^ * 

“Separation  is  no  remedy  for  these  evils,  but  the  parent 
of  far  greater  than  either  just  discontent  or  restless  am- 
bition would  fly  from.  To  the  South  the  Union  is  a 
political  blessing;  to  the  North  it  is  both  a political  aud 
a pecuniary  blessing.  * * Both  sections  should 

cherish  it,  and  the  North  most,”  etc. 


It  was  fifty  shillings  in  North  Carolina. — Laws,  page  132. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


2(57 


OHAPTEE  XX. 

THE  CAUSES  AND  THE  CONDUCT  OF  THE  WAR  FOR  THE 
SUBJUGATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES. 

“A  great  man  is  great,  and  he  is  a man;  what  makes 
him  great  is  his  relation  to  the  spirit  of  his  times,  and 
to  his  people;  what  makes  him  a man  is  his  individu- 
ality; but  separate  these  two  elements,  consider  the  man 
in  the  great  man.  and  the  greatest  of  men  appears  small 
.enough.  Every  individuality,  when  it  is  detached  from 
the  general  spirit  which  it  expresses,  is  full  of  what  is 
pitiful.  When  we  read  the  secret  memoirs  which  we 
have  of  some  great  men,  and  when  we  follow  them  into 
the  details  of  their  life  and  conduct,  we  are  always  quite 
confounded  to  find  them  not  only  small,  but,  I am  com- 
pelled to  say,  often  vicious  and  almost  despicable.” — 
Victor  Cousin,  Hist.  Mod.  Phil. 

The  causes  of  the  war  between  the  two  sections  of  the 
Union,  the  responsibility  for  its  inaugui’ation,  and  the 
rightfulness  of  the  invasion  of  the  Southern  States  have 
been  so  consistently  and  so  persistently  misrepresented 
to  the  world  during  the  last  thirty-six  years  that  it 
seems  a daring  enterprise  to  attemjit  to  remove  the  re- 
sulting false  impressions.  But  truth  and  justice  de- 
mand the  attempt ; and  it  is  here  made. 

In  the  first  Constitution  of  the  United  States  there 
were  three  Articles  which  embodied  all  that  the  South- 
ern States  ever  contended  for  during  all  the  years  of 
sectional  strife.  ’ 


' It  is  worth  while  to  remind  the  reader  that  even  the  most  un- 
scrupulous traducers  of  the  Southern  States  nevej-  charged  them 
with  infidelity  to  the  obligations  they  assumed  on  entering  into  the 
Union.  Mr.  Blaine  and  the  statesmen  of  his  school  magnified  what 
he  called  unfaithfulness  to  the  Union;  but  he  did  not  dare  to  ae 
cuse  them  of  the  crime  of  which  his  own  party  was  guilty — unfaith- 
fulness to  the  Constitution. 


268 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


They  were  as  follow's; 

“Article  II.  Each  State  retains  its  sovereignty,  free- 
dom, and  independence,  and  every  power,  jurisdiction, 
and  right,  which  is  not  by  this  confederation  expressly 
delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled;’’ 

“Article  III.  The  said  States  hereby  severally  enter 
into  a firm  league  of  friendship  with  each  other,  for 
their  common  defense,  the  security  of  their  liberties, 
and  their  mutual  and  general  welfare,  binding  them- 
selves to  assist  each  other,  against  all  force  offered  to.  or 
attacks  made  upon  them,  or  any  of  them,  on  account 
of  religion,  sovereAcjnty.  trade,  or  any  other  pretence 
whatever”;  and 

“Article  IV.  * * * The  free  inhabitants  of  each 
State,  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from  justice 
excepted,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties of  free  citizens  in  the  several  States;  * * * no 
imposition,  duties  or  restrictions  shall  be  laid  by  any 
State  on  the  * of  either  of  them.  If 

any  person  guilty  of,  or  charged  w\i\\  treason,  felony, 
or  other  high  misdemeanor  in  any  State,  shall  flee  from 
justice,  and  be  found  in  any  of  the  United  States,  he 
shall  upon  the  demand  of  the  Governor  or  executive 
power  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up 
and  removed  to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of  his 
offense.  Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each 
of  these  States  to  the  records,  acts,  and  judicial  proceed- 
ings of  the  courts  and  magistrates  of  every  other  State.  ” 

Afterwards  1 1787 i,  wdien  the  new  Constitution  was  sub- 
mitted for  ratification  to  the  several  States  (containiug 
the  additional  covenant  in  express  terms,  which  had 
been  embodied  iu  the  Ordinance  foi’  the  government  of 
the  Northwest  Territory,  that  fugitives  from  labor 
should  be  delivered  up — a covenant  implied  in  Article 
III  above,  and  not  distinctly  formulated  because  slaves 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


269 


were  “property”  iu  each  of  the  thirteen  States  when 
the  Articles  were  framed),  strong  opposition  to  ratifica- 
tion appeared  in  at  least  seven  of  the  conventions,  be- 
cause Article  II  of  the  old  Constitution  was  omitted. 
It  was  feared,  notwithstandiug  the  asseverations  of  del- 
egates to  the  contrary,  and  notwithstanding  the  evident 
exclusion  of  powers  except  those  ‘ ‘herein  granted,  ” that 
the  Congress  would  usurp  powers  not  delegated  to  it; 
and  this  fear  led  to  a demand  for  amendments.  Accord- 
ingly, the  demand  being  supported  by  majorities  in 
nearly  all  the  States,  the  first  Congress  promptly  sub- 
mitted to  the  States  and  they  ratified  ten  amendments, 
the  last  one  being  understood  to  supply  the  omission^ 
It  is:  “The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States 
by  the  Constitution  nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States, 
are  reserved  to  the  States,  respectively,  or  to  the  people.  ” 

The  spirit,  therefore,  and  almost  the  letter  of  Articles  II, 
III  and  IV  of  the  old  Constitution  are  contained  in  the 
new  one,  together  with  the  additional  covenant  respect- 
ing fugitives  from  labor.  Nothing,  it  is  true,  is  said 
about  retaining  sovereignty ; there  was  no  doubt  at  that 
time  that  each  State  was  sovereign,  free,  and  independ- 
ent; and  the  words  “delegate”  and  “reserve”  conld 
have  implied  nothing  less.  The  granting  of  a sovereign 
power  does  not  deprive  the  grantor  of  his  sovereignty, 
nor  enthrone  the  grantee  as  a sovereign. 

Such  was  the  restricted  field  in  which  the  Federal 
Government  was  morally  bound  to  confine  its  opera- 
tions; and  such  were  some  of  the  obligations  assumed 
by  each  State  on  its  entrance  into  the  Union  — obliga- 
tions and  restrictions  which  could  not  be  violated  with- 
out absolving  an  injured  State  from  the  ties  which  bound 
it  to  the  Union. ' 


‘ This  is  Mr.  Madison’s  “ delicate  truth  ” in  No.  XLIII  of  the  Fed 
eralist,  hut  it  is  a truth  which  can  not  be  denied  by  anj^body  whose 
standard  of  morals  is  worthy  of  respect. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


27(> 

Let  us  then  inquire  whether  these  restrictions  and 
obligations  have  been  respected. 

The  reader  vcill  find  elsewhere  discussed  the  violations 
of  the  Constitution  in 

1.  The  unauthorized  disposal  of  the  public  lands: 

2.  The  unjust  and  unauthorized  assumption  of  the 
State  debts; 

3.  The  bounties  to  Northeastern  fishermen; 

-t.  The  bouuties  to  vessels  engaged  in  the  foreign  trade ; 

5.  The  granting  of  a monopoly  of  the  coasting  trade; 

().  The  exclusion  of  Southern  men  with  their  property 
from  the  common  territory; 

7.  The  indirect  bounties  to  domestic  manufacturers 
out  of  the  pockets  of  the  agricultural  and  other  classes 
of  the  people; 

s.  The  burdening  of  all  the  people  with  the  ex- 
penses of  government  in  the  organized  Territories;  and 

!».  The  pensioning  of  the  North's  Revolutionary  sol- 
diers at  the  expense  of  the  South.  ‘ 

It  remains,  then,  to  record  the  infractions  of  the 
mutual  obligations  of  the  States. 

Some  of  the  most  flagrant  were: 

1.  Emigrant  Aid  Societies,  organized  under  the  pro- 
tection of  certain  States,  and  for  whose  acts  those  States 
were  morally  responsible,  sent  bloodthirsty  fanatics  into 


' With  all  these  intractions  of  the  expressed  or  implied  rights  of 
the  states  and  of  the  peojile,  well  known  to  intelligent  [)ersons.  Mr. 
Lincoln,  in  his  first  inaugural  address,  said:  “Is  it  true,  then,  that 
any  right,  plainly  written  in  the  Constitution,  has  been  denied '?  I 
think  not."  And  then,  feeling  himself  securely  supported  by  this 
denial,  he  proceeded  to  .justify  the  seceding  States  thus:  “If  by  the 
mere  force  of  numbers  a majority  should  deprive  a minority  of  any 
clearly  written  Constitutional  right,  it  might,  in  a moral  point  of 
view,  justify  revolution — certainly  would,  if  such  right  were  a vital 
one.  ’’ 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


271 


Kansas  and  elsewhere  to  murder  Southern  men,  women, 
and  children;' 

2.  With  moneys  furnished  by  these  societies  John 

Brown  raised  an  army  and  invaded  the.  State  of  Vir- 
ginia ; ^ ' 

3.  Two  of  Brown’s  accomplices,  who  had  been  in- 
dicted in  Virginia,  escaped,  one  to  Ohio  and  one  to  Iowa ; 
and  the  Governors  of  those  States  refused  to  surrender 
them  on  the  demand  of  Governor  Wise,  of  Virginia; 

I.  Emissaries  from  those  societies  went  (I860)  to  the 
borders  of  Texas  to  incite  the  savage  Indians  to  butcher 
the  people  of  that  State ; 

5.  Under  the  shadow  of  Bunker  Hih,  and  by  the  ac- 
tive or  passive  assistance  of  Massachusetts,  the  fugitive 
slave  clause  of  the  Constitution  was  trampled  under  the 
feet  of  a mob,  which  took  Shadrach,  a fugitive  slave, 
from  the  officers  of  the  law,  and  carried  him  off  to  a 
place  of  safety;  and  one  named  Jerry  w^as  liberated  in 
S3^racuse,  N.  Y,,  under  like  circumstances; 

0.  Thirteen  Noilhern  States  (Mr.  Greeley  undertakes 
to  deny  this  as  to  three  of  them)  passed  what  were 
called  “personal  liberty”  laws  forbidding  citizens  or 


' John  Bi’own  with  hi.s  band  of  cut  throats  went  from  house  to 
house  during  the  dark  hours  of  the  night,  called  out  the  occupants, 
and  murdered  them. 

He  robbed  Martin  Bourn  of  his  money,  guns,  horses,  saddles,  and 
store.  Bourn's  offense  being  that  he  had  served  on  the  last  grand 
,iury  in  Lecompton.  He  also  robbed  J.  M.  Bernard  and  thirteen 
others. 

All  this  “assassination  and  midnight  robbery"’  was  “fully  .justi- 
fied’' by  James  Redpath  in  his  Life  of  Gapt.  John  Brown. — Kansas 
Conflict,  pages  365-69. 

But  who  was  James  Redpath?  He  wms  a.  -writer  on  the  New  A’ork 
Tribune  from  1852  till  1873;  he  was  honored  b.v  the  cariiet  baggers 
from  the  North, who  were  placed  in  control  of  South  Carolina  by 
“the  Government,  ’ with  the  office  of  School  Commis.sioner ; and  he 
edited  the  Noi  th  American  Review  from  1886  to  1888. 


^ See  Note  X. 


272 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


officials  of  those  States  to  assist  in  doing  what  they 
hound  themselves  to  do  when  they  entered  into  the 
Union.  ‘ 

7.  And  to  these  must  be  added  seventy  years  of  mis- 
representation of  the  motives  of  the  Southern  people; 
malignant  abuse  of  these  people ; and  what  Carey  called 
“insult,  outrage,  and  injury.”  These  offences  were,  in 
principle,  treason  against  the  “firm  league  of  friend- 
ship,” 

This  long  train  of  infractions  of  the  conditions  on 
which  the  States  had  agreed  to  unite  tended  to  weaken  the 
bonds  of  Union  in  the  States  which  were  the  chief  suffer- 
ers. But,  outside  of  the  student  class  in  the  South,  who 
enjoyed  the  advantages  of  intellectual  pursuits,  the  un- 
warranted legislation  summarized  in  the  nine  items 
above — producing  slow,  stealthy,  and  often  misunder- 
stood results — did  not  arouse  in  the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple the  indignation  which  its  injustice  merited;  in  all 
the  later  years,  however,  particularly  after  the  tariff 
troubles  in  South  Carolina,  the  impression  became  more 
and  more  pervasive  that  the  people  of  the  Southern 
States  had  been  made,  by  Federal  legislation,  tributary 
to  certain  classes  in  the  Northern  States, 

But  partisanship  and  the  skill  of  the  ignorant  dema- 
gogue in  tracing  results  to  wrong  causes  prevented  a 
general  recognition  of  the  almost  Colonial  subordination 
of  the  Southern  States  to  the  commercial  and  manufac- 
turing States  of  the  North.  Hence  the  love  and  rever- 

' In  Mr.  Webster's  speech  at  Buffalo.  May  22,  1851,  he  said:  “The 
que.stion,  fellow  citizens  (and  1 put  it  to  you  as  the  real  question), 
the  question  is  whether  you  and  the  rest  of  the  people  of  the  great 
State  of  New  York,  and  of  all  the  States,  will  so  adhere  to  the  Con- 
stitution, will  so  enact  and  maintain  laws  1o  preserve  that  instru- 
ment, that  you  will  not  only  remain  in  the  Union  yourselves,  but 
permit  your"'  (Southern)  “bretln-en  to  remain  in  it,  and  help  to  per- 
petuate it  i ” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH.  273 

ence  for  the  union  of  Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison, 
and  the  other  distinguished  “fathers”  lost  little  of  its 
fervor. 

But  when  the  successive  infractions  of  the  mutual 
covenants  of  the  States,  like  the  few  summarized  above, 
were  flashed  over  the  Union  by  the  telegraph,  the  deter- 
mination of  certain  Northern  States  not  only  to  disregard 
their  obligations  to  their  sister  States  in  the  South,  but 
to  endanger  social  order  in  these  States,  revived  and 
emphasized  the  old  sense  of  wrong ; and  the  sacredness 
of  the  Union  became  an  open  question.  Still,  however, 
as  “mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer,  while  evils 
are  sufferable,  than  to  right  themselves  hy  abolishing 
the  forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed,”  the  avowed 
advocates  of  a dissolution  of  the  Union  constituted  a 
small  faction  in  most  of  the  Southern  States,  the  great 
majority  trusting  that  by  some  means  the  sense  of  jus- 
tice and  moral  obligation  in  the  people  of  the  Northern 
States  would  prevail  in  their  councils.  But  bodies  in 
motion  overcome  bodies  at  lest;  the  appeals  of  those 
whom  our  Northern  friends  called  “fire-eaters"  began 
to  make  inroads  on  the  Union  sentiment;  and  when  by 
a combination  of  fanaticism,  avarice,'  and  sectional  hate, 

' It  was  understood  in  the  winter  of  1860-’61  that  Pennsylvania, 
which  had  given  her  electoral  vote  to  every  Democratic  candidate 
for  the  Presidency  from  1796  to  1856,  inclusive,  except  in  1840  and 
1848,  gave  her  vote  to  Mr.  Lincoln  because  his  platform  favored  a 
tariff  for  protection — “to  encourage,”  it  said,  “the  development  of 
the  industrial  interests  of  the  whole  country.” 

Whether  this  charge  was  well  founded  or  not,  so  soon  as  the  retire 
merit  of  Southern  Members  from  the  halls  of  Congress  gave  the 
North  control  of  legislation,  bituminous  coal  was  taken  from  the 
tree  list  and  a tax  of  !|1  per  ton  imposed  on  it;  i^ig  iron,  removed 
from  the  24  per  cent  schedule,  was  taxed  86  per  ton ; and  manutac 
tures  of  iron,  removed  from  the  24  per  cent  schedule  or  the  free  list, 
were  taxed  from  fifteen  to  forty  dollars  'per  ton. — See  Act  of  March 
2,  1861. 


18 


274 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


a President,  representing  every  interest  hostile  to  the 
Southern  States,  was  declared  elected  (although  of  a 
total  popular  vote  of  4,680,881  he  had  received  only 
1,86,5,913,  or  about  39  out  of  each  100),  the  quiver  of 
the  “fire-eater”  was  filled  with  fresh  and  more  effective 
arrows;  the  prospect  of  justice  in  the  Union  was 
dimmed ; and  in  South  Carolina,  where  there  still  ran- 
kled in  the  bosoms  of  the  people  the  bitterness  engen- 
dered by  their  old  struggle  for  relief  from  tariff  burdens, 
the  “fire-eater”  met  with  few  obstacles  in  his  path.^ 
South  Carolina  repealed  her  ordinance  ratifying  the 
Federal  Constitution,  resumed  all  the  powers  she  had 
delegated  in  the  Constitution,  and  declared  herself  to 
be  as  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  as  she  was  before 
she  acceded  to  the  Confederation.  She  set  forth  the 
reasons  for  her  action.^  She  sent  Commissioners  to 

'In  the  South  Carolina  Secession  Convention.  Delegate  Parker 
said;  “It  appears  to  me,  with  great  deference  to  the  opinions  that 
have  been  expressed,  that  the  public  mind  is  fully  made  up  to  the 
great  occasion  that  now  awaits  us.  It  is  no  sijasmodic  effort  that 
has  come  suddenly  upon  us;  it  has  been  gradually  culminating  for 
a long  period  of  thirty  years.  “ 

Mr.  Inglis,  another  delegate,  said:  “As  my  friend  (Mr.  Parker)  has 
said,  most  of  us  have  had  this  matter  under  consideration  for  the 
Iasi  twenty  years.'' 

And  Mr.  Rhett  said:  “It  is  not  anything  produced  by  Mr.  Lin 
coin’s  election,  or  by  the  non  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  law.  It 
is  a matter  which  has  been  gathering  head  for  thirty  years.’’ 

To  the  testimony  of  these  parties  we  can  fortunately  add  that  of 
Mr.  Lincoln,  that  the  tariff  controversy  in  1828,  1830  and  1832  gave 
the  first  impulse  to  secession  in  the  South.  “With  rebellion  thus 
sugar  coated,”  he  .said  in  his  message  to  the  called  session  of  Con- 
gress, .July  4,  1861,  “they  have  been  drugging  the  public  mind  of 
their  section  for  more  than  thirty  years.” 

The  principal  reasons  stated  were  that  the  New  England  States, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  Indiana.  Michigan,  Wisconsin, 
and  Iowa  had  nullified  the  law  of  Congress  providing  for  the  en 
forcement  of  the  Constitutional  covenant  respecting  fugitives  from 
labor;  and  that  Ohio  and  Iowa  had  refused  [to  comply  with  the 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


275 


President  Buchanan,  whose  term  was  not  yet  closed,  to 
settle  amicably  all  questions  of  property  rights,  having- 
little  doubt  of  success,  since  seventeen  days  before  the 
passage  of  her  secession  ordinance,  he  had  expressed 
this  opinion  in  his  annual  message: 

- ‘‘Congress  may  possess  many  means  of  preserving  it 
(the  Union)  by  conciliation,  but  the  sword  was  not 
placed  in  their  hand  to  preserve  it  by  force.” 

This  confidence  of  South  Carolina  in  an  amicable  set- 
tlement was  not  founded  solely  on  this  announcement 
in  Mr.  Buchanan’s  message.  Other  acts  and  utterances 
were  relied  on,  some  of  which  were  the  following: 

1.  When  in  1790  Mr.  Hamilton,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  became  alarmed  for  the  success  of  his  scheme 
to  assume  the  debts  of  the  several  States,  he  appealed 
to  Mr.  Jefferson,  the  Secretary  of  State,  for  his  influ- 
ence with  Members  of  Congress  in  aid  of  the  measure, 
presenting  the  reason  that,  if  the  measure  should  fail, 
the  Members  from  the  creditor  States  would  withdraw 
from  the  Congress,  and  thei’e  would  be  “a  sep-aration 
of  the  States. 

2.  The  famous  “Kentucky  and  Virginia  Resolutions 

of  1798,  and  * * * the  Report  of  Mr.  Madison  to 

the  Virginia  Legislature  in  1799,”  adopted  and  reaf- 
firmed in  the  platforms  on  which  Franklin  Pierce  and 
James  Buchanan  were  elected  to  the  Presidency,  laid 
down  the  doctrine  that  as  there  is  no  common  judge 
between  the  States  of  the  Union,  “each  party  (State)  has 
an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  infractions 
as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress.” 

3.  In  1803  Col.  Timothy  Pickering,  a Senator  from 
Massachusetts,  elected  that  year  to  fill  a vacancy  and 


covenant  re.spectmg  fugitives  frotii  justice  (those  demanded  by  the 
Governor  of  Virginia  for  their  participation  in  John  Brown’s 
crimes). — See  Stephens’s  Pictorial  History,  etc.,  560. 


27(1 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


reelected  next  year  for  a full  six  years'  term  (and  was 
elected  to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  1814- : wrote 
a letter  to  a friend  in  which  he  asserted  the  right  of  a 
State  to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  Complaining  of 
what  he  called  the  “oppressions  of  the  aristocratic  Dem- 
ocrats' of  the  South,’’  he  said:  “I  will  not  despair.  I 
will  rather  anticipate  a new  Confederacy,  exempt  from 
the  corrupt  and  corrupting  influence,  etc.  There  will 
he  (and  our  children,  at  farthest,  will  see  it)  a separa- 
tion,’’etc.  And  in  another  letter  written  a short  time 
afterwards  he  said  of  his  proposed  “separation”  : “That 
this  can  be  accomplished,  and  without  spilling  one  drop 
of  blood,  1 have  little  doubt.  * * * It  ;thc  separa- 

tion) must  begin  in  Massachusetts.  The  proposition 
would  be  welcomed  in  Connecticut : and  could  we  doubt 
of  New  Hampshire '?  But  New  York  must  be  associated ; 
and  how  is  her  concurrence  to  he  obtained?  She  must 
be  made  the  ceutei"  of  the  Confederacy.  Vermont  and 
New  Jersey  would  follow  of  course,  and  Rhode  Island 
of  necessity”  (Maine  was  not  a State  at  that  time). 

-t.  In  1803  was  published  Judge  Tucker's  Blackstoue, 
in  the  Appendix  to  which,  page  187.  speaking  of  the 
nature  of  the  Union,  he  said:  “Each  is  still  a perfect 
State,  still  sovereign,  still  independent,  and  still  capa- 
ble, should  the  occasion  requii-e,  to  resume  the  exercise 
of  its  functions,  as  such,  in  th<-  most  unlimited  man- 
ner. ’ ’ 

5.  In  1811  the  Hon.  Josiah  Quincy,  a Member  of  Con- 
gress fi'om  Massachusetts,  oppo.sing  a bill  for  the  admis- 
sion of  Louisiana  as  a State  into  the  Union,  because,  as 
the  reader  can  infer  from  evidence  elsewhere  presented, 
the  South  would  be  thereby  strengthened  in  Congress, 
said : “If  this  bill  passes,  it  is  my  deliberate  opinion  that 


The  word  “ Democrats"  was  a term  of  iej:roach. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


it  is  virtually  a dissolution  of  this  Union;  that  it  will 
free  the  States  from  their  moral  obligation;  and  as  it 
will  be  the  right  of  all.  so  it  will  be  the  duty  of  some, 
definitely  to  prepare  for  a separation — amicably  if  they 
can,  violently  if  they  niust.”^ 

Mr.  Quincy  does  not  seem  to  have  been  at  variance 
with  public  sentiment  in  Massachusetts ; he  was  hon- 
ored with  many  official  stations  afterwards,  serving  in 
the  State  Legislature,  as  judge  of  the  Municipal  Court 
of  Boston,  as  ma,yor  of  Boston,  and  from  1829  to  1845 
as  President  of  Harvard  College. 

9.  In  1814  tlie  Hartford  Convention,  composed  of  dele- 
gates chosen  by  the  Legislatures  of  Massachusetts, 
Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut,  with  some  county  and 
town  repiHsentatives  from  the  other  New  England 
States,  published  an  address  (after  deliberating  with 
closed  doors  on  the  propriety  or  necessity  of  withdraw- 
ing their  States  from  the  Union)  in  which  they  said: 

‘‘If  the  Union  be  destined  to  dissolution  * * " it 

should,  if  possible,  he  the  work  of  peaceable  times  and 
deliberate  consent.  Some  new  form  of  confederacy 
should  be  substituted  among  those  States  which  shall 
intend  to  maintain  a federal  relation  to  each  other. 
Events  may  prove  that  the  causes  of  our  calamities  are 
deep  and  permanent.  * * Whenever  it  shall  ap 

pear  that  the  causes  are  radical  and  permanent,  a sepa- 
ration by  equitable  arrangement  will  be  preferable  to  an 
alliance  by  constraint  among  nominal  friends,  but  real 
enemies.  ’ ’ 

7.  William  Rawle,  who  became  United  States  District 

’ Speaker  Yarn u in,  on  a point  of  order  raised  by  Mr.  Poindexter 
of  Mississippi,  decided  that  Quincy's  declaration  of  the  right  or  duty 
of  States  to  secede  was  out  of  order;  but  “a  part  of  the  Democrats 
voting  with  the  Federalists,  the  House  reversed"  the  Speaker’s  de- 
cision, 56  to  53. — Hildreth.  New  Series,  3,  226. 


■27 S THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

Attorney  for  Pennsylvania  in  1791,  declined  the  office 
of  United  States  District  Judge  in  1792,  and  was  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Law  Association  of  Philadelphia  from  1822 
till  his  death  in  1836,  wrote  an  elaborate  work  on  the 
Constitution,  which  was  published  in  1825.  He  had 
been  a firm  supporter  of  President  John  Adams’s  Admin- 
istration ; but  when  he  entered  upon  the  investigations 
necessary  to  prepare  himself  for  the  composition  of  his 
great  work — Rawle  on  the  Constitution — lie  was 
brought  to  the  same  conclusion  that  closer  study  brought 
Mr.  Webster  to.  He  said: 

“The  Union  is  an  association  of  the  people  of  Repub- 
lics; its  preservation  is  calculated  to  depend  on  the  pre- 
servation of  those  Republics.  ^ It  depends  on 

the  State  itself,  to  retain  or  abolish  the  principle  of  rep- 
resentation ; because  it  depends  on  itself,  whether  it  will 
continue  a member  of  the  Union.  To  deny  this  right, 
would  be  inconsistent  with  the  principles  on  which  all 
our  political  systems  are  founded;  which  is,  that  the 
people  have,  in  all  cases,  a right  to  determine  how  they 
will  be  governed. 

“This  right  must  be  considered  as  an  ingredient  in  the 
original  composition  of  the  General  Gov'ernment,  which, 
though  not  expressed,  was  mutually  understood,”  etc. 

8.  In  1839  ex-President  John  Q.  Adams  delivered  an 
address  before  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  in 
wdiich  he  said:  “Tbe  indissoluble  link  of  union  between 
the  people  of  the  several  States  of  this  confederated  na- 
tion is,  after  all,  not  in  the  right,  but  in  the  heart.  If 
the  day  should  ever  come  imay  Heaven  avert  it)  when 
the  affections  of  the  people  of  these  States  shall  be 
alienated  from  each  other — the  bonds  of  political  asso- 
ciation will  not  long  hold  together  parties  no  longer  at- 
tracted by  the  magnetism  of  conciliated  interests  and 
kindly  sympathies;  and  far  better  will  it  be  for  the  peo- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


279 


pie  of  the  disunited  States  to  part  in  friendship  with  each 
other  than  to  be  held  together  by  constraint.  Then  will 
be  the  time  for  reverting  to  the  precedents  which  occur- 
red at  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
to  form  again  a more  perfect  Union,  by  dissolving  that 
which  could  no  longer  bind,  and  to  leave  the  separated 
parts  to  be  reunited  by  the  law  of  political  gravitation 
to  the  center.” 

9.  In  this  same  year  (1839)  the  question  whether  the 

laws  of  nations,  or  the  laws  which  regulate  the  inter- 
course of  separate  sovereignties,  apply  to  the  States  of 
the  Union,  was  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the 
case  of  The  Bank  of  Augusta  vs.  Earle.  The  Court  in 
the  course  of  its  decision  said;  “They  are  sovereign 
States.  * * * We  think  it  well  settled,  that  by  the 

law  of  comity  among  nations,  a corporation  created 
by  one  sovereign  is  permitted  to  make  contracts  in  an- 
other, and  to  sue  in  its  courts;  and  that  the  same  law 
of  comity  prevails  among  the  sevjeral  sovereignties  of 
this  Union.” 

10.  In  1811,  while  abolition  societies  were  exerting 

themselves  to  disrupt  the  Union,  and  their  emissaries 
had  been  violating  the  privileges  of  debate  in  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives  by  vilifying  the  people  of  the  South- 
ern States  and  their  Representatives,  not  only  in  disre- 
gard of  the  rules  of  the  House,  but  of  the  Constitution 
itself,  since  the  subject  they  discussed  was  beyond  the 
Constitutional  control  of  the  Congress,  Gen.  William  H. 
Harrison  expressed  himself  as  follows  in  his  Inaugural 
Address;  “It  was,  indeed,  the  ambition  of  the  leading 
States  of  Greece  to  control  the  domestic  concerns  of  the 
others,  that  the  destruction  of  that  celebrated  confed- 
eracy, and  subsequently  of  all  its  members,  is  mainly  to 
be  attributed.  And  it  is  owing  to  the  absence  of  that 
spirit  that  the  Helvetec  confederacy  has  for  so  many 
years  been  preserved.  * * 


280 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


“Our  confederacy,  fellow-citizens,  can  only  be  pre- 
served by  the  same  forbearance.  * * * The  attempt 

of  those  (citizens)  of  one  State  to  control  the  domestic 
institutions  of  another,  can  only  result  in  feelings  of 
distrust  and  jealousy,  and  are  certain  harbingers  of  dis- 
union, civil  war,  and  the  ultimate  destruction  of  our 
free  institutions.  Our  confederacy  is  perfectly  illus- 
trated by  the  terms  and  principles  governiug  a commun 
copartnership.  ■“ 

11.  In  184-1  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  threat- 
ened the  President  and  the  Congre.ss  in  this  style:  “The 
project  of  the  annexation  of  Texas,  unless  arrested  on 
the  thieshold,  may  tend  to  drive  these  States  (Xew  Eng- 
land* into  a dissolution  of  the  Union.” 

12.  In  1851  Daniel  Webster,  “the  Great  Expounder 
of  the  Constitution,”  delivered  a speech  at  Capon 
Springs,  Vii-ginia,  wherein  he  said: 

“If  the  South  were  to  violate  any  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution intentionally  ,aud  systematically,  and  persist  in 
so  doing  year  after  year,  and  no  remedy  could  be  had. 
would  the  North  be  any  longer  bound  by  the  rest  of  if? 
And  if  the  North  were,  deliberately,  habitually,  and  of 
fixed  purpose,  to  disregard  one  part  of  it,  would  the 
South  be  bound  any  longer  to  observe  its  other  obliga- 
tions ? * * 

“How  absurd  it  is  to  suppose  that,  when  different  par- 
ties enter  into  a compact  for  certain  purposes,  either  can 
disregard  any  one  provision,  and  expect,  nevertheless, 
the  other  to  observe  the  rest ! * * A bargain  can 

not  be  broken  on  one  side,  and  still  bind  the  other  side." 

13.  In  1855  Senator  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  of  Ohio, 
whose  extreme  bitterness  towards  the  Southern  people, 
and  whose  support  of  all  the  usurping  measures  of  the 
radicals  from  1861  till  his  retirement  from  the  Senate 
in  1867,  made  him  a couspicuous  figure  and  perhaps 


THE  POUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  :2S1 

constituted  his  chief  qualification  for  the  Vice-Presi- 
dency after  Andrew  Johnson  hecame  President,  deliv- 
ered a speech  in  the  Senate,  of  which  the  following  is  an 
extract ; 

“Who  is  to  be  judge,  in  the  last  resort,  ot  the  violation 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  by  the  enact- 
ment of  a law?  Who  is  the  final  arbiter?  The  Gen- 
eral Government,  or  the  States  in  their  sovereignty? 
Why,  sir,  to  yield  that  point,  is  to  yield  up  all  the  rights 
of  the  States  to  protect  their  own  citizens,  and  to  con- 
solidate this  Government  into  a miserable  despotism. 
* tpgT.g  wg]<e  States  in  this  Union  whose 

highest  tribunals  had  adjudged  that  bill  to  be  unconsti- 
tutional; * * * that  my  State  believed  it  unconsti- 

tutional: and  that,  under  the  old  Kesolutions  of  1798 
and  1799,  a State  must  not  only  be  the  judge  of  that, 
but  of  the  remedy  in  such  a case.” 

U.  In  1857  Lippiucott’s  Pronouncing  Gazetteer  of 
THE  World  was  first  published,  containing  this  defini- 
tion: “The  government  of  the  United  States  is  a con- 
federation of  independent  sovereignties,  delegating  a 
portion  of  their  power  to  a central  government,  ”etc. 

15.  On  the  9th  of  November,  1860,  eleven  days  before 
South  Carolina  seceded,  Horace  Greeley,  the  editor  of 
the  New  York  Tribune,  and  one  of  the  most  able  of  the 
founders  of  the  party  which  elected  the  President  in 
1860,  published  the  following  in  his  paper: 

“The  telegraph  informs  us  that  most  of  the  cotton 
States  are  meditating  a withdrawal  from  the  Union,  be- 
cause of  Lincoln’s  election.  * * * If  the  cotton 

States  consider  the  value  of  the  Union  debatable,  we 
maintain  their  perfect  right  to  discuss  it.  Nay:  we 
hold,  with  Jefferson,  to  the  inalienable  right  of  commu- 
nities to  alter  or  abolish  forms  of  government  that  have 
become  oppressive  or  injurious;  and,  if  the  cotton  States 


282 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


shall  decide  that  they  can  do  better  out  of  the  Union 
than  in  it,  we  insist  on  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The 
right  to  secede  may  be  a revolutionary  one,  but  it  exists 
nevertheless ; and  we  do  not  see  how  one  party  can  have  a 
right  to  do  what  another  party  has  a right  to  prevent." 

On  this  solid  foundation — this  recognition  of  the  truth 
by  a long  line  of  the  natural  guides  of  an  intelhgent 
people — South  Carolina  based  her  expectation  of  success 
in  her  negotiations  with  the  Federal  authorities. 

But  she  was  disappointed;  Mr.  Buchanan  lacked  the 
courage  of  his  convictions,  and  while  turning  the  sub- 
ject over  to  Congress,  he  claimed  that  it  was  his  duty 
CO  hold  and  defend  the  property  belonging  to  the  Uni- 
ted States,  on  the  theory  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  defend  the  city  and 
harbor  of  Charleston — the  purpose  for  which  South  Car- 
olina had  given  her  consent  for  the  purchase  of  the  sites 
of  the  forts,  arsenals,  ma.gazines,  etc. — after  that  State 
had  withdrawn  from  the  Union. 

During  this  period  of  uncertainty  and  excitement  two 
efforts  were  made  to  bring  about  peace  and  reconcilia- 
tion. The  first  was  made  in  the  Senate  by  the  vener- 
able .John  J.  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky.  He  proposed 
certain  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which,  if 
adopted,  would  perhaps  have  satisfied  the  South;  but 
the  angry  radicals  voted  them  down.  The  second  was 
a proposition  by  Virginia  of  a “Peace  Congress'"  of  all 
the  States  then  in  the  Union  to  “consider,  and  if  practi- 
cable, agree  upon  some  satisfactory  adjustment."  This 
Congress  met  on  the  dth  of  February,  1861,  and  ad- 
journed on  the  2Tth  of  the  same  month.  It  had  during 
its  sessions  representatives  from  all  the  States  then  in 
the  Union  except  Arkansas,  California.  Michigan,  Wis- 
consin. Minnesota,  and  Oregon;  but  the  necessity  of, 
“saving  the  Eepublican  Party  from  rupture,"  as  Sena- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


283 


tor  Zach.  Chandler,  of  Michigan,  wrote  to  Governor 
Austin  Blair, ' was  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  any  satis- 
factory agreement.  ^ 

Thus  things  drifted  along  till  Mr.  Buchanan  turned 
over  the  business  to  the  sectional  President. 

In  the  meantime  Mississippi,  Florida.  Alabama,  Geor- 
gia, and  Louisiana  had  seceded,  and  uniting  with  South 
Carolina,  had  entered  into  a new  Union,  styling  them- 
selves the  Confederate  States  of  America.  The  new 
government  sent  commissioners  to  Washington  to  nego- 
tiate friendly  relations  between  the  two  governments, 
and  “ for  the  settlement  of  all  questions  of  disagreement 
between  the  two  governments,  upon  principles  of  right, 
justice,  equity,  and  good  faith.”  It  passed  an  act  an- 
nouncing that  “peaceful  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
River  is  hereby  declared  free  to  the  citizens  of  any  of 
the  States  upon  its  borders,  or  upon  the  borders  of  its 
navigable  tributaries.”  By  another  act  it  provided 
against  any  monopoly  of  the  coast-wise  trade;  and  by 
all  its  acts  manifested  a disposition  to  maintain  amica- 
ble relations  with  the  other  States. 

They  adopted  a Provisional  Constitution,  February  8, 
1861,  and  on  March  11,  five  days  after 'the  inauguration 
of  Mr.  Lincoln,  (Texas  being  then  in  the  Confederacy) 
a permanent  Constitution  was  adopted.  It  was  modeled 
after  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  containing 

* In  a postscript  to  his  letter  Chandler  expressed  the  oi)inion  that 
■ without  a little  blood  letting,  this  Union  will  not,  in  iny  estima- 
tion be  worth  a rush.” 

^ Hon.  George  Ilavis,  of  North  Carolina,  a staunch  Unionist,  was 
sent  as  a delegate  to  this  “ Peace  Congress.”  He  returned  an 
avowed  secessionist,  declaring  in  an  address  to  the  people  of  Wil- 
mington, March  2,  1861,  that  he  could  ‘‘never  accept  the  plan 
adopted  by  the  ‘Peace  Congress’  as  consistent  with  the  right,  the 
interests,  or  the  dignity  of  North  Carolina.” — Wilmington  (N.  C.) 
Daily  Journal  of  March  4,  1861. 


284 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


all  its  guaranties  of  personal,  political,  and  State  rights, 
together  with  some  additional  provisions  intended  to 
guard  against  abuses  and  to  cure  defects  which  had  been 
discovered  in  the  old  system.  Here  is  a summary  of 
these: 

1 . A Confederate  officer,  resident  and  acting  solely 
within  the  limits  of  any  State,  might  be  impeached  by 
a vote  of  two-thirds  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature 
thereof. 

2.  All  taxes  should  be  laid  for  purposes  of  revenue 
only. 

8.  No  bounties  w^ere  to  be  granted  from  the  Treasury. 

4.  No  duties  or  taxes  were  to  be  laid  for  the  purpose 
of  promoting  or  fostering  any  branch  of  industry. 

5.  No  appropriation  of  money  should  be  made  for  any 
internal  improvement  intended  to  facilitate  commerce, 
except  for  lights,  beacons  and  buoy^s,  and  other  aid  to 
navigation  on  the  coast;  and  also  for  the  improvement 
of  harbors  and  navigable  rivers,  provided  that  such  du- 
ties shall  be  laid  on  the  navigation  thereby  facilitated  as 
will  pay  the  cost  of  the  improvements. 

(i.  No  bankrupt  law  should  discharge  any  debt  con- 
tracted before  its'  passage. 

7.  The  expenses  of  the  Post-oifice  Department  should 
be  paid  out  of  its  own  revenues. 

S.  The  importation  of  slaves  from  any  foreign  coun- 
try except  the  United  States  was  prohibited,  and  the 
Congress  Vv^as  empowered  to  prohibit  their  importation 
from  any  State  not  a member  of  the  Confederacy. ' 


' This  Constitution  was  garbled  and  misrepresented  to  the  world  by 
the  tradueers  of  the  Southern  States,  and  their  Government  was 
denounced  as  “the  Slave  holders'  Confederacy."  Moore  says  in  his 
Notes,  etc.,  that  “the  stains  which  slavery  has  left  on  the  proud 
escutcheon  of  Massachusetts,  are  quite  as  significant  of  its  hideous 
character  as  the  satanie  defiance  of  God  and  humanity  which  ac- 
companied the  laying  of  the  corner  stone  of  the  Slave-holders'  Con- 
federacy." 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


285 


9.  Congress  should  appropriate  no  money  from  the 
Treasury,  except  by  a two-thii  ds  vote  in  both  Houses, 
taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  unless  it  v/ere  asked  for  by  a 
head  of  a Department;  or  for  the  payment  of  its  own 
expenses;  or  for  the  payntent  of  an  adjudicated  claim 
against  the  Confederate  States. 

10.  All  appropriation  bills  should  state  the  exact 
amount  of  each  appropriation,  and  its  object;  and  no 
extra  allowance  should  be  made  to  any  contractor,  offi- 
cer, agent,  or  servant. 

11.  Every  law,  or  resolution  having  the  force  of  lawg 
should  relate  to  but  one  subject,  and  that  should  be  ex- 
pressed in  the  title. 

12.  The  States  might  lay  a tonnage  tax  on  sea-going 
vessels  for  the  improvement  of  their  rivers  and  harbors 
navigated  by  said  vessels,  provided  such  tax  did  not  con- 
flict with  any  treaty. 

13.  The  President  was  forbidden  to  appoint  any  per- 
son t8  office  after  his  rejection  by  the  Senate. 

14.  No  new  State  should  be  admitted  into  the  Con- 
federacy unless  by  a vote  of  two-thirds'  of  the  whole 
House  of  Representatives  and  two-thirds  of  the  Senate 
voting  by  States. 

15.  The  Confederate  States  might  acquire  new  terri- 
tory; and  the  Congress  might  legislate  for  the  inhabi- 
tants of  such  territory;  might  permit  them  to  organize 
States  to  be  admitted  into  the  Confederacy;  provided 
that  neither  the  Congress  nor  a Territorial  Legislatute 
should  have  the  power  to  iiiterfei  e with  or  abolish  sla- 
very. 

Such  were  the  provisions  for  insuring  the  domestic 
tranquillity,  for  guarding  against  tliat  favoritism  to  sec- 
tional or  class  interests  which  shook  the  foundations  of 
the  Union  in  1832  and  1833,  for  preventing  inexcusable 
extravagance  in  appropriations,  and  for  excluding  al^ 


286 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


those  seeds  of  discord  which  have  found  a more  or  less 
fertile  soil  in  every  one  of  the  world’s  confederations. 

The  dth  of  March,  1861,  arrived,  and  Araham  Lincoln 
went  into  office.  He  reversed  the  policy  of  Mr.  Buch- 
anan, who  had  submitted  the  whole  question  of  the  re- 
lations of  the  two  governments  to  the  Congress:  he  did 
not  summon  the  members  to  meet  in  special  session,  as 
the  gravity  of  the  situation — if  in  his  estimation  it  was 
grave — demanded;  but  he  assumed  the  entire  responsi- 
bility of  plunging  the  peoples  of  the  two  sections  into  a 
bloody  and  devastating  war,  declaring  in  his  inaugural 
address  his  purpose  “to  hold,  occupy  and  possess  the 
property  and  places  belonging  to  the  Cxovernment,  and 
collect  the  duties  and  imposts.”  But  theie  was  no  prop- 
erty “belonging  to  the  Clovernment” ; the  language  of 
the  Constitution  is,  “belonging  to  the  United  States,’’ 
that  is,  to  the  States  of  the  Union.  But  the  seceded 
States  were  some  of  the  States  to  which  it  belonged,  a 
fact  which  is  carefully  excluded  from  any  inference  to 
he  drawn  from  the  language  of  the  address.  And  his 
determination  to  collect  taxes  in  the  Confederate  States 
was  unmistakably  a declaration  of  war. 

This  claim  of  property  “belonging  to  the  Government" 
rested  on  a very  weak  foundation,  as  a brief  history  of 
the  tej-ms  on  which  the  United  States  acquired  their 
title  to  it  will  make  clear. 

The  States  couferred  upon  the  Congress  the  power  “to 
exercise  exclusive  legislation  in  all  cases  whatsoever 
^ * * over  all  places  purchased  by  the  consent  of 

the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  which  the  same  shall  he. 
for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock- 
3mrds,  and  other  needful  buildings." 

While  Mr.  Jefferson  was  Secretary  of  State,  he  wrote 
to  the  authorities  of  South  Carolina,  and  advised  that 
her  Legislature  consent  for  the  Congress  to  purchase 


THE  ^^OUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


287 


certain  lands.  This  was  done,  but  exclusive  jurisdiction 
ivas  denied.  The  act  was  passed  December  12,  1795, 
(House  Ex.  Doc.,  number  67,  2nd  session,  28d  Congress) 
“to  enable  the  Uuited  States  to  purchase  a quantity  of 
land  in  this  State,  not  exceeding  two  thousand  acres, 
for  arsenals  and  magazines.”  And  it  provided,  “that 
the  said  land,  when  purchased,  and  every  person  and 
officer  residing  or  employed  thereon,  whether  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  United  States  or  not,  shall  be  subject  and 
liable  to  the  government  of  this  State,  and  the  jurisdic- 
tion, laws  and  authority  thereof  in  the  same  manner  as 
if  this  act  had  never  been  passed;  and  that  the  United 
States  shall  exercise  no  more  authority  or  power  within 
the  limits  of  the  said  land,  than  they  might  have  done 
previous  to  the  passing  of  this  act,  or  than  may  be  nec- 
essary for  the  building,  repairing,  or  internal  govern- 
ment of  the  arsenals  and  magazines  thereon  to  be  erected, 
and  the  regulation  and  management  of  the  same,  and 
of  the  officers  and  persons  by  them  to  be  employed  in 
or  about  the  same."  But  there  was  a proviso  that  the 
land  should  not  be  taxed  by  the  State. 

But  this  act  did  not  transfer  from  the  State  her  title 
to  the  forts  and  other  defensive  works  in  Charleston 
Harbor,  which  she  built  during  the  Revolution.  The 
transfer  was  made  by  an  act  passed  in  18o5,  to  which 
the  following  proviso  was  added:  “That,  if  the  United 
States  shall  not,  within  three  years  from  the  passing  of 
this  act,  * * * repair  the  fortifications  now  exist- 

ing thereon  or  build  such  other  forts  or  fortifications  as 
may  be  deemed  most  expedient,  etc.,  on  the  same,  and 
keep  a garrison  or  garrisons  therein ; in  such  case  this 
grant  or  cession  shall  be  void  and  of  no  effect.” ' 

^ Neither  South  Carolina  nor  any  other  State  was  i^aid  anything 
out  of  the  Federal  Treasury  to  I’eiiuburse  her  for  her  expenses  in- 
curred in  erecting  defensive  works  in  her  harbors  during  the  Revo- 
lution. nor  for  cessions  of  State  lands. — See  Act  of  March  20,  1794. 


288 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


This  proviso  was  disregarded  by  the  United  States,  the 
defensive  works,  including  Fort  Moultrie,  were  neglected 
for  years,  and  Fort  Sumter  was  not  commenced  till  1829. 
According  to  all  the  law^s  of  justice,  therefore,  the  title 
to  the  property  reverted  to  the  State,  and  the  repairing 
and  building  were  carried  on  solely  by  the  sufferance  of 
the  State.  ‘ 

Thus  it  is  clear  to  anybody  who  respects  the  laws  gov- 
erning })roperty  titles  that  the  United  States  occupied 
the  defensive  works  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston  without 
any  legal  rights  of  ownership;  and  since  the  money 
spent  in  building  came  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people 
of  all  the  States,  it  can  not  be  disputed  that  whatever 
equitable  rights  were  acquired  belonged  to  the  seceded 
States  as  well  as  to.  the  others.  And  it  is  equally  in- 
disputable that  South  Carolina  never  surrendered  her 
sovereignty  over  the  sites  of  the  forts  and  other  defen- 
sive works. 

Such,  dear  reader,  was  the  foundation  of  the  claim 
that  the  forts  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston  be- 
longed to  the  Government” ; and  the  determination  of 
“the  Government”  to  hold  these  forts  for  purposes  not 
only  not  contemplated  in  South  Carolina's  acts  of  consent 

' The  Act  of  the  Legislature  of  North  Carolina  (17941  ceding  .sites 
for  forts,  light  honses.  etc.,  reserved  to  the  officers  of  the  State  the 
power  to  .serve  any  process  or  levy  executions  on  the  lands  ceded, 
and  imposed  the  conditions  that  the  fortifications,  etc.,  should  be 
erected  within  three  years  (which  was  not  complied  with),  and  that 
they  “should  be  continued  and  kept  up  thereafter  for  the  public 
u.se."  The  limit  was  extended  by  other  acts,  and  in  ISUI  it  was 
provided  that  it  the  works  were  not  completed  within  five  years  the 
lands  should  revert  to  the  State. 

Evidently  there  was  no  intention  here  to  convey  a fee-simple  title 
to  “the  (Tovernment” : and  since  the  fortifications  on  the  coast  of 
the  State  were  not  completsd  till  twenty  years  afterwards,  it  was 
equally  evident  that  the  hiiilding,  occupation,  etc.,  were  at  the 
sufferance  of  the  State. — See  Report  of  Engineer  Department.  No- 
vember 28,  1883. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  289 

and  cession,  but  in  violation  of  the  implied  as  well  as 
the  expressed  conditions  imposed  by  her,  was  notice  to 
her  to  prepare  to  defend  her  sovereignty,  was  the  casus 
belli,  the  first  blow  struck  in  the  war  between  the  sec- 
tions ; and  she  would  have  deserved  the  contempt  of  all 
honorable  men  if  she  had  not  met  it  defiantly,  as  she 
met  Sir  Henry  Clinton  and  Sir  Peter  Parker  in  June, 
1776.  ' 

Mr.  Lincoln,  as  has  been  said,  declared  war  against 
the  Confederate  States  (which  he  called  “a  combination 
too  powerful,”  etc.),  raised  armies,  proclaimed  a block- 
ade of  Southern  ports,  suspended  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  at  Baltimore  and  other  places,  took  money  out 
of  the  Federal  Treasury,  and  did  many  other  things  for 
w’-hich  he  could  find  no  warrant  in  that  Constitution 
which  he  had  solemnly  sworn  to  support,  before  the 
meeting  of  the  called  session  of  Congress.  That  body, 
composed  mostly  of  members  from  the  ^Northern  States, 
met  on  the  4-th  of  July,  and  adjourned  on  the  6th  of 
August. 

One  of  the  first  measures — the  first  resolution — 
brought  before  it  was  a proposition  to  declare  legal  and 
Constitutional  what  were  not  legal  and  Constitutional 
acts;  but  the  motion  failed.  Here  is  an  abstract  of  the 
proceedings  in  the  Senate  (Congressional  Globe,  1st  ses- 
sion, 37th  Congress,  pp.  16,  21,  4:0  and  4:53): 

On  the  6th  of  July  “Mr.  Wilson  (Mass. ),  in  pursuance 
of  previous  notice,  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  intro- 
duce a joint  resolution  (Senate  No.  1)  to  approve  and 
confirm  certain  acts  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  for  suppressing  insurrection  and  rebellion.  ” The 
resolution  was: 

“Whereas,  since  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  on  the 


19 


* See  Note  Y. 


290 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


4th  day  of  March  last,  a formidable  insurrection  in  cer- 
tain States  of  this  Union  has  arrayed  itself  in  armed 
hostility  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  Con- 
stitutionally administered;  and  whereas  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  did  under  the  extraordinary  exi- 
gencies thus  presented,  exercise  certain  powers  and  adopt 
certain  measures  for  the  preservation  of  this  Govern- 
ment— that  is  to  say:  First.  He  did,  on  the  loth  day  of 
April  last,  issue  his  proclamation  calling  upon  the  sev- 
eral States  for  75,000  men  to  suppress  such  insurrection- 
ary combinations,  and  to  cause  the  laws  to  be  faithfully 
executed.  Secondly.  He  did,  on  the  I9th  day  of  April 
last,  issue  a proclamation  setting  on  foot  a blockade  of 
the  ports  within  the  States  of  South  Carolina.  Georgia, 
Alabama,  Florida,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  Texas. 
Thirdly.  He  did,  on  the  2Tth  day  of  April  last,  issue  a 
proclamation  establishing  a blockade  of  the  ports  within 
the  States  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  ^ Fourthly. 
He  did,  by  order  of  the  27th  day  of  April  last,  addressed 
to  the  Commanding  General  of  the  Army  of  the  United 
States,  authorize  that  officer  to  suspend  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  at  any  point  on  or  in  the  vicinity  of  any 
military  line  between  the  city  of  Philadelphia  and  the 
city  of  Washington.  Fifthly.  He  did.  on  the  3d  day  of 
May  last,  issue  a proclamation  calling  into  the  service  of 
the  United  States  42,034  volunteers,  increasing  the  regu- 
lar Army  by  the  addition  of  22.714  men,  and  the  Navy 
by  an  addition  of  18,000  men.  Sixthly.  He  did,  on  the 
10th  day  of  May  last,  issue  a proclamation  authorizing 
the  commander  of  the  forces  of  the  United  States  on 
the  coast  of  Florida  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  cor- 

‘ Mr.  Lincoln  di’ove  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Ar- 
kansas to  choose  whether  they  would  assist  him  in  subjugating  their 
Southern  sisters  or  assist  them  in  resisting  him.  They  chose  the 
latter. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


291 


pus,  if  necessary,  all  of  which  proclamations  and  orders 
have  been  submitted  to  this  Congress. 

“Now,  therefore,  be  it  resolved,  etc.  That  all  of  the 
extraordinary  acts,  proclamations  and  orders,  hereinbe- 
fore mentioned  are,  and  the  same  are  hereby,  approved 
and  declared  to  be  in  all  respects  legal  and  valid,  to  the 
same  extent  and  with  the  same  effect,  as  if  they  had  been 
issued  and  done  under  the  previous  express  authority 
and  direction  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.” 

On  July  8th  Mr.  Wilson,  for  the  Committee  on  Mili- 
tary Affairs  and  Militia,  to  which  this  resolution  had  been 
referred,  reported  back  the  resolution,  without  amend- 
ment, and  recommended  its  passage.  “I  wish  to  say,” 
he  added,  “that  the  action  of  the  President  in  increas- 
ing the  Army  and  calling  out  the  volunteer  force,  will 
be  regulated  by  other  bills,  to  be  brought  in  hereafter.” 

In  another  place  Mr.  Wilson  said:  “Apian  has  been 
arranged  for  the  organization  of  eleven  regiments  for  the 
Army.  Officers  have  been  appointed,  * "■  sent 

to  certain  points  of  the  country,  and  money  has  been 
placed  in  their  hands  to  fill  up  the  ranks  of  the  Army,” 
etc. 

But  the  resolution  was  never  passed;  after  many 
efforts  to  have  a vote  on  it,  it  was  permitted  to  die  with 
the  session.  The  last  debate  on  it  was  closed  thus  on 
page  153 : 

“Mr.  Wilson.  Let  us  have  a vote. 

“Mr  Trumbull  (of  Illinois).  Now,  my  friend  is  clam- 
orous.' He  can  not  keep  still.  He  says  let  us  have  a 
vote.  I am  not  disposed  to  vote  on  the  resolution.  I 
will  tell  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  (Powell  ?)  I am 
not  prepared  to  vote  for  the  resolution,  and  it  is  not 


292 


T E SOUTH  AGAINST  TEE  NORTH. 


going  to  pass  without  consideration.  It  is  not  going  to 
pass  in  the  shape  it  is  in  hy  my  approhation.  ” ‘ 

The  Senate  then  went  into  executive  session,  and  that 
evening  adjourned  sine  die. 

The  reason  why  the  Senate  refused  to  pass  this  reso- 
lution may  interest  the  reader;  it  had  not  at  that  early 
date  recognized  “military  necessity”  as  paramount  to 
the  Constitution  which  it  was  under  a solemn  oath  to 
support. 

Not  only  were  all  or  most  of  the  acts  recited  in  it  un- 
constitutional, hut  its  assertions  were  repugnant  to  the 
meaning  of  that  compact. 

1.  The  alleged  offense  named  in  it  mav"  be  committed 
against  “the  United  States,”  hut  not  against  “the  Gov- 
ernment”; and  the  language  of  the  resolution  was  due 
to  ignorance  or  malice. 

2 The  power  to  raise  armies  was  delegated  exclusively 
to  the  Congress. 

3.  The  power  to  increase  the  naval  forces  was  dele- 
gated exclusively  to  the  Congress. 

-1.  The  Constitution  conferred  on  nobody  the  power 
to  blockade  a port  in  order  to  collect  the  revenue  thereat, 
the  tariff  lav,'  being  the  only  one  mentioned  in  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's proclamation,  the  execution  of  which  was  “ob- 
structed hy  combinations  too  powerful.”  etc. 

5.  The  President  is  not  authorized  hy  the  Constitu- 
tion to  empower  a military  officer  to  suspend  tl:e  writ 
of  habeas  corpus  at  his  discretion. 

(i.  The  Constitution  expressly  forbids  the  drawing  of 

' Certain  leading  newspapers  in  the  North,  copied  with  apparent 
approval  by  some  Southern  papers,  are  prepai-ing  the  ])eople  for  ac- 
quiescence in  the  strides  towards  imperialism  which  the  war  ^vith 
Sixain  is  rendering  easy,  by  maintaining  the  doctrine  that  ours  is  an 
■‘elastic  Con.stitution,"  and  that  the  President  can  do  whatever  in 
his  judgment  is  best  for  the  country.  If  this  is  true,  Wilson's  reso- 
lution should  have  passed  without  opposition. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


293 


any  money  out  of  the  Treasury  “but  in  consequence  of 
appropriations  made  by  law.” 

7.  The  act  of  February  28,  1795,  (the  only  anti-insur- 
rection law  in  force  when  Mr.  Lincoln  became  Presi- 
dent) did  not  justify  him  in  belittling  a sovereign  State  as 
a “combination.”  That  act  was  passed  in  consequence 
of  the  whiskey  insurrection  in  western  Pennsylvania  the 
preceding  July,  in  these  words : “Whenever  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  shall  he  opposed,  or  the  execution 
thereof  obstructed  in  any  State  by  combinations  too 
powerful  to  be  suppressed  by  the  ordinary  course  of 
judicial  proceedings,  or  by  the  powers  vested  in  the 
marshals  by  this  act,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President 
of  the  United  States  to  call  forth  the  militia  of  such 
State,  or  of  any  other  State  or  States,  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  suppress  such  combinations,”  etc. 

This  silent  disapproval,  by  his  party  friends,  of  Mr. 
Lincoln’s  course  up  to  July  4,  1861,  seems  to  have  been 
in  accord  with  a sentiment  which  prevailed  in  many  sec- 
tions of  the  North,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  follow- 
ing indications  of  opinions : 

1.  On  December  31,  1860 — eleven  days  after  the  seces- 
sion of  South  Carolina — Mr.  Pryor,  of  Virginia,  offered 
the  following  resolution  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives: “That  any  attempt  to  preserve  the  Union  be- 
tween the  States  of  this  Confederacj^  by  force  would  be 
impracticable,  and  destructive  of  Republican  liberty.” 

On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Stanton,  the  resolution  was  laid 
on  the  table,  the  yeas  being  98  and  the  nays  55.  ^ Among 
the  nays  were  Messrs.  Logan,  McClernand,  and  Sickles.  ^ 

'Congressional  Globe,  Part  T,  Volume  Xlfl,  Second  Session, 
Thirty  sixth  Congress,  page  220. 

^ Mr.  Sickles  proposed  on  December  17,  1860 — thi’ee  days  before 
South  Carolina  seceded — that  the  Constitution  be  amended  so  as  to 
provide  for  peaceable  secession. — Congressional  Globe,  Second  Ses- 
sion, Thirty-sixth  Congress,  Volume  II,  page  107. 


294 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


2.  On  February  5,  1861,  Mr.  Logan  delivered  a speech 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  (after  South  Carolina, 
Florida,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana 
had  withdrawn  from  the  Union,  and  a secession  ordi- 
nance had  been  submitted  to  the  popular  vote  in  Texas), 
in  which,  misunderstanding  the  real  causes  of  the  long 
contest  between  tbe  sections,  he  expressed  his  views 
thus:  “The  abolitionists  of  the  North  have  constantly 
warred  upon  Southern  institutions,  by  incessant  abuse 
from  the  pulpit,  from  the  press,  on  the  stump,  and  in 
the  halls  of  Congress,  denouncing  them  as  a sin  against 
God  and  man;  they  have  in  many  places,  by  mobs, 
resisted  the  execution  of  the  fugitive  slave  law ; they 
have,  in  several  of  the  Northern  States,  by  legislative 
enactment,  made  it  a penitentiary  offense  for  anyone  to 
assist  in  the  arrest  or  rendition  of  a fugitive  slave.  By 
these  denunciations  and  lawless  acts  on  the  part  of  abo- 
lition fanatics,  such  results  have  been  produced  as  to 
drive  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  to  a sleepless 
vigilance  for  the  protection  of  their  property  and  preser- 
vation of  their  rights.”  Addressing  the  fanatics  in 
Congress  who  had  resisted  every  attempt  to  compromise 
the  differences  between  the  sections,  he  said;  “I  would 
ask  these  gentlemen,  who  are  opposed  to  concession  or 
compromise,  and  in  favor  of  war  for  tbe  subjugation  of 
these  revolting  States,  if  it  would  not  be  better  for  us 
all,  North  and  South,  to  adjust  our  difficulties  in  a 
proper  spirit  on  some  just  basis;  banish  the  slavery 
agitation  from  the  halls  of  Congress  forever;  avoid  war, 
bloodshed,  and  the  horrors  of  civil  strife,  and  once  more 
give  peace  to  a distracted  country?  Let  them  refuse 
this;  let  this  Congress  adjourn  without  adjusting  these 
difficulties  or  submitting  them  to  the  people  for  their 
action,  and  I envy  not  the  position  of  any  gentleman  in 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


295 


this  House  or  the  other  end  of  the  Capitol  who  has  in- 
terposed obstructions,  or  may  yet  do  so,”  etc. 

3.  In  the  “Peace  Congress,”  February  23,  1861,  Mr. 
Vandever,  of  Iowa,  offered  and  moved  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

“ Resolved,  That  whatever  may  be  the  ultimate  de- 
termination upon  the  amendments  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, or  other  propositions  for  adjustment  approved 
by  this  Convention,  we,  the  members,  do  recommend 
our  respective  States  and  constituencies  to  faithfully 
abide  in  the  Union.” 

And  on  a motion  to  table  the  ayes  were  Khode  Island, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  Missouri 
and  Ohio.  ^ 

4.  Northern  sentiment  adverse  to  coercion  is  expressed 
in  the  following  extracts  from  newspapers  (taken  from 
Greeley’s  American  Conflict,  Vol.  I,  beginning  on  p. 
395): 

a.  The  Albany  Argus  of  November  10,  1860,  said: 
“ We  sympathize  with  and  justify  the  South  as  far  as 
this:  their  rights  have  been  invaded  to  the  extreme 
limit  possible  within  the  forms  of  the  Constitution ; and, 
beyond  this  limit,  their  feelings  have  been  insulted  and 
their  interests  and  honor  assailed  by  almost  every  pos- 
sible form  of  denunciation  and  invective;  and,  if  we 
deemed  it  certain  that  the  real  animus  of  the  Republi- 
can party  could  be  carried  into  the  administration  of 
the  Federal  Government,  and  become  the  permanent 
policy  of  the  Nation,  we  should  think  that  all  the  in- 
stincts of  self-preservation  and  of  manhood  rightfully 
impelled  them  to  a resort  to  revolution  and  a separation 

‘Appendix,  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-sixth  Congress,  pages 
178-180. 

^ Official  Journal  of  the  Conference  Convention,  page  43. 


296 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


from  the  Union,  and  we  would  applaud  them  and  wish 
them  God-speed  in  the  adoption  of  such  a remedy.” 

b.  The  Eochester  Union,  “two  or  three  days  later. ” 

said:  “ Restricting  our  remarks  to  actual  violations  of 
the  Constituticu,  the  North  have  led  the  way,  and  for 
a long  period  have  been  the  sole  offenders,  or  aggressors. 
* ■"  * Owing  to  their  different  circumstances.  North- 

ern States  have  been  enabled  to  secure  their  cherished 
object  by  violating  the  Constitution  in  a way  that  does 
not  necessitate  secession.  * * * Owing  to  their  pe- 

culiar circumstances,  the  Southern  States  can  not  retal- 
iate upon  the  North  without  taking  ground  for  seces- 
sion.” 

c.  The  Albany  Argus,  November  12,  said:  “If  South 
Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  through  a Convention  of 
her  people,  shall  formally  separate  herself  from  the 
Union,  probably  both  the  present  (Buchanan i and  the 
next  (Liucoln)  Executive  will  simply  let  her  alone,  and 
quietly  allow  all  the  functions  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  be  suspended.  Any  other  course  would  be 
madness.  ” 

d.  The  New  York  Herald,  November  9,  said:  “Each 

State  is  organized  as  a complete  government,  holding 
the  purse  and  wielding  the  sword,  possessing  the  right 
to  break  the  tie  of  the  confederation  as  a nation  might 
break  a treaty,  ^nd  to  repel  coercion  as  a nation  might 
repel  invasion.  * * Coercion,  if  it  were  possible, 

is  out  of  the  question.” 

e.  The  New  York  Express.  April  15,  1861.  said:  “The 
* ‘irrepressible  conflict,’  started  by  Mr.  Seward  and  en- 
dorsed by  the  Republican  Party,  has  at  length  attained 
to  its  logical  foreseen  result.  That  conflict,  undertaken 
‘for  the  sake  of  humanity, ’ culminates  now  in  inhu- 
manity itself,  and  exhibits  the  afflicting  spectacle  of 
brother  shedding  brother's  blood. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


297 


“ Refusing  the  ballot  before  the  bullet,  these  men, 
flushed  with  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  Federal 
Government,  have  madly  rushed  into  a civil  war,  which 
will  probably  drive  the  remaining  slave  States  into  the 
arms  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  and  dash  to  pieces 
the  last  hope  for  a reconstruction  of  the  Union.  * * 

To  the  cold-blooded,  heartless  demagogues  who  started 
this  civil  war — themselves  magnanimously  keeping  out 
of  the  reach  of  bodily  harm — we  can  only  say.  You 
must  find  your  account,  if  not  at  the  hands  of  an  indig- 
nant people,  then  in  the  tears  of  widows  and  orphans. 
The  people  of  the  United  States,  it  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  petitioned,  begged,  and  implored  these  men,  who 
are  become  their  accidental  masters,  to  give  them  an 
opportunity  to  he  heard  before  this  unnatural  strife  was 
pushed  to  a bloody  extreme,  but  their  petitions  weie  all 
spurned  with  contempt,”  etc. 

In  another  editorial  the  Express  said:  “They  fight 
upon  their  o wn  soil,  in  behalf  of  their  dearest  rights^ — 
for  their  public  institutions,  their  homes,  and  their 
property.  * * " The  South,  in  self-preservation, 

has  been  driven  to  the  wall,  and  forced  to  proclaim  its 
independence.  A servile  insurrection  and  wholesale 
slaughter  of  the  whites  will  alone  satisfy  the  murderous 
designs  of  the  abolitionists.  The  Administration,  egged 
on  by  the  halloo  of  the  Black  Republican  journals  of 
this  city,  has  sent  its  mercenary  forces  to  pick  a quarrel 
and  initiate  the  work  of  desolation  and  ruin.  A call  is 
made  for  an  army  of  volunteers,  under  the  pretense  that 
an  invasion  is  apprehended  of  the  Federal  Capital;  and 
the  next  step  will  be  to  summou  the  slave  population  to 
revolt  and  massacre.” 

/.  The  Utica,  N.  Y.,  Observer  said:  “Brave  men, 
fighting  on  their  own  soil,  and,  as  they  believe,  for  their 
freedom  and  dearest  rights,  can  never  be  subjugated. 


298 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


* * * “ Who  are  to  fight  the  battles  of  sectional  hatred 
in  this  sad  strife  ? The  seceders  will  fight;  but  will  the 
abolitionists,  who  have  combined  with  them  to  over- 
throw the  Union,  make  themselves  food  for  powder? 
-A-  * -X-  The  abolitionist  will  sneak  in  the  background, 

leaving  those  to  do  the  fighting  who  have  no  interest  in 
the  bloody  strife,  no  hatred  against  their  brethren.” 

g.  The  Bangor  (Maine)  Union  said:  “Democrats  of 

Maine ! the  loyal  sons  of  the  South  have  gathered  around 
Charleston,  as  your  fathers  of  old  gathered  about  Bos- 
ton, in  defense  of  the  same  sacred  principles  of  liberty — 
principles  which  you  have  ever  upheld  and  defended 
with  your  vote,  your  voice,  and  your  strong  right  arm. 
Your  sympathies  are  with  the  defenders  of  the  truth 
and  the  right:  Those  who  have  inaugurated  this  uu- 
holy  and  unjustifiable  war  are  no  friends  of  yours — no 
friends  of  Democratic  Liberty.  Will  you  aid  them  in 
their  work  of  subjugation  and  tyranny?  * * gay 

to  them  fearlessly  and  boldly,  in  the  language  of  Eng- 
land’s great  Lord,  the  Earl  of  Chatham,  * * “If 

I were  a Southerner,  as  I am  a Northerner,  while  a 
foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country,  I would  never 
lay  down  my  arms — never,  never,  NEVER.’  ” 

h.  The  Journal  of  Commerce  (New  Y^ork)  said:  “No 

doubt  it  has  been  precipitated  b,y  the  sending  of  a fleet 
with  troops  by  the  Lnited  States  Government,  for  the 
relief  (as  was  understood)  of  Sumter.  And  on  the  other 
hand,  it  may  be  said  that  this  action  * ^ « ’^-as 

occasioned  by  the  cutting  off  of  supplies  from  Fort  Sum- 
ter by  the  Confederate  authorities,  which  rendered  it 
necessary  to  send  them  from  New  Y"ork  or  some  other 
point.  To  this  again,  it  may  be  replied,  that  the  cutting 
off  of  supplies  by  the  Confederate  authorities  was  caused 
by  the  long  continued  delay  of  the  United  States  au- 
thorities to  take  or  consent  to  any  measures  of  adjust- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST -THE  NORTH. 


299 


ment  of  the  pending  differences,  thus  leaving  the  Con- 
federate authorities  subject  to  the  necessity  of  main- 
taining a large  military  force  at  Charleston  for  an  in- 
definite period,  or  abandon  their  claims  altogether,” 
etc.  ‘ 

i.  The  Boston  Post  said : “An  extra  session  of  Con- 

gress should  be  called  at  once  ” — which  Mr.  Lincoln  re- 
fused to  do — “and  if  that  body  prove  incompetent  to 
the  duty  required,  then  a National  Convention  should 
be  convened ; and,  if  all  measures  for  a satisfactory  ad- 
justment fail,  after  full  hearing  and  answers  to  state- 
ments of  discontent,  “■  * let  it  (the  South)  depart 

in  peace,  if  possible,”  etc. 

j.  Mr.  Greeley’s  opinion  expressed  in  the  Tribune  of 
November  9,  1860,  that  the  States  possessed  the  right 
to  withdraw  from  the  Union,  is  recorded  in  another 
chapter. 

k.  One  other  expression  of  views  is  worth  recording, 
because  it  came  from  a man  whose  insight  into  motives 
was  of  rare  force.  Gen.  Joseph  Lane,  of  Oregon,  reply- 
ing in  the  Senate,  March  2,  1861,  to  a speech  of  Senator 
Andrew  Johnson's  advocating  the  “ execution  of  the 
law^s,”  “protecting  the  public  property,”  etc.,  said: 
“ Sir,  if  there  is,  as  I contend,  the  right  of  secession, 
then,  whenever  a State  exercises  that  right,  this  Gov- 
ernment has  no  laws  in  that  State  to  execute,  nor  has 
it  any  property  in  such  State  that  can  be  protected  by 
the  power  of  this  Government.  In  attempting,  how- 
ever, to  substitute  the  smooth  phrases  ‘ executing  the 
laws  ’ and  ‘ protecting  public  property’  for  coercion,  for 
civil  war,  we  have  an  important  concession : that  is, 

' The  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  South  Carolina  seceded  on 
the  20th  of  December,  and  demanded  possession  of  the  forts  in 
Charleston  hai’bor ; and  that  nearly  four  months  passed  Vjy  before 
she  knew  what  “the  Goyernment”  would  do. 


300 


THE  SOUTH  -AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


that  this  Government  dare  not  go  before  the  people  with 
a plain  avowal  of  its  real  purposes  and  their  consequen- 
ces. No,  sir;  the  policy  is  to  inveigle  the  people  of  the 
North  into  civil  war,  by  masking  the  design  in  smooth 
and  ambiguous  terms.’’  ‘ 

But  by  the  machinations  of  ignorant  reformers,  men- 
dacious demagogues,  ^ and  zealous  fanatics  the  days  of 
cool  reason  soon  passed  away : all  this  pleading  for  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  was  hushed;  Messrs.  Lo- 
gan, McClernand,  and  Sickles  were  found  at  the  head 
of  bodies  of  troops  engaged  in  destroying  “ republican 
liberty'’;  and  Mr.  Greeley  was  among  the  loudest  of 
those  who  shouted,  “ On  to  Richmond!  ” 

Vigorous,  concerted,  and  in  many  instances  successful 
efforts  were  made  to  place  the  people  of  the  Southern 
States  on  a level  with  savages;  even  Abraham  Limoln 
in  his  (fettysburg  address,  November  19,  1S(!3,  told  his 
hearers — and  this  speech  is  embalmed  among  the  sacred 
literature  of  the  North — that  the  Southern  people  were 
attempting  to  destroy  the  Federal  Government  and  to 
cause  “government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 
the  people  ” to  “ perish  from  the  face  of  the  earth": 
and  soon  patriotism  and  hatred  of  the  people  of  the 
South  became  synonymous  terms  in  the  minds  of  many 

^ Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirtij-sixth  Congress,  page  1,347. 

- Aiuoiig  the  false  accusations  set  in  motion  to  fire  the  hearts  of  the 
people  of  the  North  these  two  may  be  taken  as  samples; 

1.  It  was  charged  in  an  Act  of  the  Congress  passed  July  31,  1861. 
that  the  Confederates  intended  to  destroy  the  Grovernment  of  the 
United  States;  and 

2.  United  States  army  officers  who  resigned  in  1861  and  went  with 

their  States  were  accused  of  violating  their  official  oaths,  wliich  was 
represented  to  be  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Government,  whereas 
the  language  of  it  was;  “I,  A.  B.,  do  solemnly  swear  ^ * that 

1 will  hear  true  faith  and  allegiance  to  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica, and  that  1 will  serve  them  honestly,''  etc. — Act  of  January  11. 
1812. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  -THE  NORTH. 


301 


of  the  more  ignorant  of  the  Northern  people.  The  war- 
raged  for  four  years,  thousands  were  butchered,  thou- 
sands of  others  were  maimed  for  life,  several  hundred 
millions  of  dollars  worth  of  property  in  the  South  w'ere 
wantonly  destroyed,  millions  more  were  stolen,  millions 
more  of  captured  and  so-called  abandoned  property  were 
carried  out  of  the  South  by  orders  of  the  militaiy  offi- 
cers, ' thousands  of  Southern  women  and  children  were 
reduced  to  beggary — to  say  nothing  of  the  personal  in- 
sults and  outrages  they  had  to  submit  to  from  the  black 
and  white  brutes  who  wore  the  Federal  uniform — and  a 
colossal  war  debt  was  saddled  on  the  people  of  the  South 
as  well  as  the  North,  v/hich,  including  $1,727,000,000  of 
pensions,  amounted  on  .June  30,  1894,  according  to  the 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  that  year  (p. 
CXXIXl,  to  $16,380,000,000  already  paid.  This  was 
nearly  three  hundred  and  twenty-eight  dollars  per 

'Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman  wrote  to  Genei-al  Halleek  on  .January  1, 
1865,  that  he  had  devastated  a strip  of  Georgia  “thirty  miles  on 
either  side  of  a line  from  Atla.nta  to  Savannah,”  an  area  2,465 
square  miles  larger  than  the  State  of  Vermont;  and  that  he  had 
damaged  the  State  as  much  as  §100,000,000.  including  §20,000,000 
which  had  “inured”  to  the  “advantage”  of  the  invaders. — War 
Records.  XLIV.  7-14. 

Much  of  this  fiendish  work  was  done  by  the  cavalry  of  Gen.  .Jud- 
son  Kilpatrick.  He  reported  (Ibid.,  28)  that  they  had  burnt  14,070 
bales  of  cotton,  13,400  bushels  of  corn  and  meal,  80  tons  of  fodder,  50 
barrels  of  molasses,  25  barrels  of  salt,  36  grist  mills,  27  sawmills,  271 
cotton  gins,  besides  qua.ntities  of  rice,  wagons,  carts,  tools,  etc.,  etc. 

Congratulating  Sherman  “upon  the  splendid  resuit”  of  this  devas- 
tating march,  “the  like  of  which  is  not  read  of  in  past  history,” 
General  Grant  subscribes  himself,  “more  than  ever,  if  possible.”  his 
friend. — Ibid.,  page  741. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  closing  a letter  of  thanks  for  all  this  vandalism,  says: 

“Please  make  my  grateful  acknowledgments  to  your  whole  army, 
officers  and  men.” — Ibid.,  page  809. 

And  public  sentiment  in  the  Northern  States  to-day,  if  we  may 
judge  by  McClure’s  Magazine  for  June,  1898,  page  171,  is  that  this 
was  Sherman’s  “glorious  March  to  the  Sea.” 


302  THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 

capita  of  the  average  population  (50,000,000)  between 
1865  and  1891:,  an  annual  per  capita  burden  of  nearly 
eleven  dollars,  and  a iienalty  laid  on  the  Southern  peo- 
ple about  eleven  times  as  grievous  as  the  indemnity  ex- 
acted from  the  French  at  the  close  of  the  Franco- Ger- 
man War,  with  the  prospect  of  its  being  at  least  twenty 
times  as  grievous  before  we  are  rid  of  it.  ‘ 

But  even  these  enormous  amounts  do  not  reveal  all 
the  iniquity.  All  the  bonds  sold  from  1862  to  1868 
(both  years  included ) represented  a face  value  of  82.- 
049,975,700,  and  for  them  the  treasury  received  treasury 
notes  (greenbacks)  worth  in  coin,  on  tbe  average  for  the 
period,  ' nly  81,371,424,238;  so  that  here  was  at  the 
outset  a clear  gain  to  the  bondholders  of  8678,551.462. 
But  this  is  not  all;  taking  the  average  price  of  cotton 
for  the  first  four  years  after  the  war,  and  also  for  the 
whole  period  up  to  1 894,  we  find  that  one  hale  would 
pa3^  as  much  of  this  debt  during  the  first  period  as  two 
and  one-half  bales  would  pay  during  the  whole  period: 
and  in  1894  it  required  six  and  six- tenths  times  as  many 
bales  as  would  have  been  necessary  in  the  first  period. 
As  cotton  fell,  therefore,  the  bonds  Avent  up.  and  the 
vassalage  of  tbe  South  became  more  burdensome.  ^ 

To  these  inflictions  on  the  people  of  the  South,  affect- 


' This  does  not  include  the  cost  of  the  “reconstruction  measures." 
the  military  despotism  in  the  South,  the  malignant  “ force  bills.” 
the  “election  laws,”  etc.,  etc.,  nor  the  enormous  debts  piled  uij  on 
the  Southern  people  by  the  “carpet  bag”  governments  establi.shed 
in  the  Southern  States  under  the  wing  of  "the  Government,”  nor 
the  millions  spent  by  each  Northern  State  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
war,  for  which  it  has  been  reimbursed  out  of  the  general  treasury. 
Nor  does  it  include  the  cost  of  the  soldiers' homes,  or  the  sums  given 
annually  to  retired  officers  and  enlisted  men  who  served  in  the 
armies  of  the  Northern  States  during  the  war  between  the  sections 
— a class  of  pensioners  never  heard  of  in  these  States  till  after  that 
war  commenced. 


^ See  Note  Z. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH.  303 

ing  the  products  of  their  toil,  must  be  added  a con- 
tempt for  their  sensibilities  which  “ the  Government  ” 
has  never  shown  towards  any  other  people.  Not  only 
did  it  for  a number  of  years  after  the  war  force  on  these 
people  so-called  State  officials,  as  Governors,  Judges, 
legislators,  etc.,  whom  the  people  had  no  voice  in  choos- 
ing; but  it  sent  objectionable  strangers  or  appointed 
objectionable  natives  to  represent  “ the  Government  ” 
as  Commissioners,  Collectors  of  Customs,  Marshals, 
Postmasters,  Revenue  Officers,  etc.  This  last  offense 
has  been  kept  up  till  now,  and,  in  spite  of  remonstrances 
and  protests,  it  will  likely  continue,  while  to  no  other 
people  on  the  globe  is  any  disagreeable  person — persona 
non  grata — sent  as  a representative  of  the  Government. 
Friendly  courtesy  is  shown  to  foreign  States  only. 

Nothing  of  the  sort  was  ever  heard  of  till  “ the  Gov- 
ernment ” fell  into  the  hands  of  the  North.  Even  Mr. 
Lincoln,  while  announcing  his  purpose  to  “hold,  occupy 
and  possess  the  property  and  places  belonging  to  the 
Government,  and  to  collect  the  duties  and  imposts,” 
declared  that  there  would  be  “no  attempt  to  force  ob- 
noxious strangers  among  the  people  for  that  object.”' 

But  irerhaps  all  these  wrongs  and  their  immediate  re- 
sults may  be  less  disastrous  to  our  ultimate  welfare 
than  the  vicious  doctrines  which,  during  the  war  and 
the  “Reconstruction”  period,  gained  an  undisputed  foot- 
ing in  the  Northern  States.  The  Union  of  the  Consti- 
tution was  destroyed,  and  what  Senator  Wade  called 
“a  miserable  despotism”  was  erected  on  its  ruins-;  “the 
maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of  the  States,  and 
especially  the  light  of  each  State  to  order  and  control 
its  own  domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judg- 
ment exclusively,”  was  no  longer  “ essential,”  as  Mr. 


’ See  Note  Aa. 


30-!: 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


Lincoln’s  platform  declared  it  to  be,  “ to  that  balance 
of  power  on  which  the  perfection  anl  endurance  of  our 
political  fabric  depends”;  and  the  men  who  had  fought 
in  the  armies  of  the  North  were  told,  as  General  Grant 
told  a reunion  of  the  Army  of  the  Tennessee  at  Des 
Moines,  la.,  in  September,  1875,  that  the  trials  and 
hardships  of  the  war  were  “imposed  for  the  preserva- 
tion and  perpetuation  of  our  free  institutions  ”! 

Note  X. 

The  prevalent  belief  of  the  Southern  people  that  the  abolitionists 
and  the  free  soilers  of  the  Nortliern  States  were  in  sympathy  with 
John  Brown’s  invasion  of  Virginia  and  his  attempt  to  excite  an  in- 
surrection of  the  slaves,  was  met  by  a vigorous  denial  all  over  the 
North.  But  how  far  this  denial  was  based  on  the  truth  may  be  in 
ferred  from  the  following  scene  in  the  office  of  Governor  Andrew,  of 
Massachusetts:  In  the  summer  of  1862,  after  Andrew  had  received 
some  assurances  that  Mr.  Lincoln  would  likely  yield  to  New  Eng- 
land’s demand  that  he  interfere  in  some  way  with  slavery  in  the 
South,  “a  young  merchant  of  Boston,”  whc  had  been  selected  by 
Andrew  to  go  on  a mission  to  Washington,  joined  the  Governor  in 
his  office  in  singing  “Coronation,”  “Praise  God.  from  whom  all 
ble.ssings  flow,”  and  “then,”  he  said.  “I  sang  ‘ Old  .John  Brown.'  he 
(Andrew)  marching  around  the  room  and  joining  in  the  chorus  after 
each  verse.” — Memoirs  of  .John  A.  Andrew,  page  37. 

Note  Y. 

The  substitittion  of  the  words  “the  Government”  for  those  of  the 
Constitution — “the  United  States” — which  was  done  in  1861,  for  ob 
vious  reasons,  has  served  the  purpose  of  falsifying  in  the  public 
mind  the  real  motives  fcr  the  inauguration  of  the  war ; and  this 
substitution  has  been  kept  up  ever  since  for  reasons  equally  dis- 
creditable. 

A few  examples  will  not  be  uninteresting: 

1.  In  the  Constitution  “treason  against  the  United  States  shall 
consist  only  in  lev3dng  war  against  them.”  etc.:  bur  now  the  only 
ti’eason  known  in  the  Union  is  against  “the  Government.’' 

2.  In  the  Constitution  the  President  is  empowered  to  grant  par 
dons  for  “offences  against  the  United  States”;  but  now  he  pardons 
for  offences  “against  the  Government.” 

3.  In  the  Constitution  the  Congress  is  empowered  “ to  borrow 
money  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States”;  but  now  it  borrows  on 
the  credit  of  “the  Government.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


305 


4.  In  the  Constitution  we  find  “the  securities  and  current  coin  of 
the  United  States”;  but  now  we  hear  only  of  “Government”  securi 
ties,  etc. 

5.  In  the  Constitution  reference  is  made  to  persons  “employed  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States” ; but  now'  they  are  all  in  the  em- 
ployment of  “the  Government.” 

6.  In  the  Constitution  reference  is  made  to  the  debts,  oblip:ations, 
etc.,  “of  the  United  States” ; but  ncAV  they  are  debts  and  obliga- 
tions “of  the  Government.” 

7.  In  the  Constitution  there  are  “ officers  of  the  United  States” ; 
but  now  they  are  “officers  of  the  Government.” 

8.  In  the  Constitution  reference  is  made  “to  controversies  to  which 
the  United  States  shall  be  a party”;  but  now  “the  Government”  is 
a party  to  suits. 

9.  In  the  Constitution  provision  is  made  for  the  disposal  of  “the 
territory  or  other  property  belonging  to  the  United  Stales”;  but 
now  we  hear  of  “Government”  property,  or  “property  belonging  to 
the  Government.” 

10.  In  the  Constitution  we  read  of  things  done  or  to  be  done  “un- 
der the  authority  of  the  United  States”;  but  now  they  are  done 
“under  the  authority  of  the  Government.” 

The  undoubted  purx>ose  of  this  vicious  substitution  was  to  create 
in  the  minds  of  the  people  in  these  States  and  in  Europe  the  impres- 
sion that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  over  the  States, 
they  bearing  a subordinate  relation  to  it;  that  “ the  Government” 
is  sovereign,  and  the  States,  tor  all  practical  purposes,  mere  provin- 
ces; and  that,  therefore,  “ the  Government”  possessed  the  right  to 
subjugate  the  seceded  States. 

This  perversion  of  the  truth  was  carried  over  and  presented  to  the 
Tribunal  of  Arbitration  which  met  in  Geneva  in  1871-’72  to  settle 
the  “Alabama  Claims” ; but  the  fear  that  it  could  not  be  imposed 
on  ihe  arbitrators,  led  to  a supplementary  falsehood,  the  peculiar 
nature  of  which,  it  was  thought,  would  have  the  desired  influence 
on  them.  It  was  a misrepresentation,  by  garbled  extracts,  of  the 
reasons  proclaimed  by  the  seceding  States  for  their  action. 

It  is  “the  case  of  the  United  States”  prepared,  presumably,  by 
the  ablest  lawyers  to  be  found ; and  is  Senate  Executive  Document 
No.  31.  Second  Session,  Forty- second  Congress. 

It  begins  with  an  untruth,  namely,  “ In  1861  the  United  States 
had  been  an  independent  Nation  for  a period  of  eighty-four  years 
and  acknowledged  as  such  by  Great  Britain  for  a period  of  seventy- 
seven  years.  ” There  are  in  fact  two  untruths;  both  assertions  are 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  facts  set  forth  in  the  Treaty  of  Peace 
and  with  the  known  relations  of  the  States  in  1783. 

The  first  article  in  the  treaty  is : 

20 


306 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOKTH. 


•‘His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said  United  States,  viz: 
New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Ehode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland.  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Greorgia,  to  be  free,  sovereign  and  independent  States;  that  he  treats 
with  them  as  such,”  etc.— See  Laws  of  the  State  of  North  Carolina, 
page  559. 

The  language  of  the  treaty  is  in  perfect  accord  with  the  second 
article  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  wherein  each  State  was 
recognized  as  sovereign,  free,  and  independent.  Nor  is  there  a sylla- 
ble in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion. or  in  the  Constitution  indicating  that  the  people  of  the  several 
States  ever  intended  to  consolidate  themselves  into  a “nation.”  or 
ever  did  in  fact  do  so. 

But,  supposing  that  this  untruth  would  be  accepted  as  a funda- 
mental fact,  the  “case”  proceeds  to  lay  down  another.  It  is: 

“On  the  6th  day  of  November,  in  that  year,  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Oovei-nment  of  the  United  States  extended  unquestioned  over 
eighteen  States  from  which  African  slavery  was  excluded:  over 
fifteen  States  in  which  it  was  established  by  law;  and  over  a vast 
territory  in  which,  under  the  then  prevailing  laws,  persons  with 
African  blood  in  their  veins  could  be  held  as  slaves. 

‘•This  large  unsettled  or  partially  settled  territory,  as  it  might  be- 
come peopled,  was  also  liable  to  be  divided  into  new  States,  which, 
as  they  entered  into  the  Union,  might,  as  the  law  then  stood,  be- 
come slave  States,  thus  giving  the  advocates  of  slavery  an  increased 
strength  in  the  Congress  of  the  Nation,  and  more  especially  iit  the 
Senate,  and  a more  absolute  control  of  the  National  Crovernment.” 

Here  we  have  the  language  of  imperialism;  the  ‘•jurisdiction  of 
the  (Government"  extending  ‘•over”  the  States  and  the  territory  in- 
discriminately: ‘•the  Congress  of  the  Nation”;  and  “the  National 
(Government” — all  in  a grave  diplomatic  iiaper  presented  to  a body 
of  arbitrators  who  were  supposed  to  be  unfamiliar  with  the  history 
and  the  principles  of  our  Federal  Union. 

The  supplementary  falsehood,  its  foundations  laid  in  the  last 
clause  quoted  above,  reaches  its  full  proportions  in  the  following 
condensed  extracts : “The  general  election  * * * resulted  in  the 
choice  of  Abraham  Lincoln.  The  party  which  elected  him  was 
pledged  in  advance  to  •maintain  that  the  normal  condition  of  all 
the  territory  of  the  United  States  is  that  of  freedom."  and  to  ‘ deny 
the  authority  of  Congress,  of  a Territorial  Legislature,  or  of  any  in- 
dividuals, to  give  legal  existence  to  slavery  in  any  Territory  of  the 
United  States.’  * * * 

“This  decision  * * * was  resisted  by  some  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  States  where  slavery  prevailed.  The  people  of  South  Caro- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


307 


Una  * * * commenced  the  hostile  movement.  In  the  following 
month  they  proclaimed,  through  a State  Convention,  their  purpose 
to  secede  from  the  Union,  because  the  party  about  to  come  into 
power  had  ‘announced  that  the  South  shall  be  excluded  from  the 
common  territorj'.’ ^ The  State  of 'Alabama  * * * followed, 

* * » giving  as  their  reason  that  the  election  of  ^Mr.  Lincoln  ‘by 
a sectional  party,  avowedly  hostile  to  the  domestic  institutions  (i.  e., 
slavery)  of  Alabama,' was  ‘apolitical  wrong  of  an  insulting  and 
menacing  character.' 

“The  State  of  Georgia  followed,  etc.,  etc. 

"On  the  4th  of  February,  1861,  representatives  from  some  of  the 
States  which  had  attempted  to  go  through  the  form  of  secession 
* met  at  Montgomery,  in  the  State  of  Alabama,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  organizing  a provisional  Government,  and  having  done  so, 
elected  Mr.  .Jefferson  Davis  as  the  provisional  President,  etc.  In 
accepting  the  office,  on  the  18th  of  February,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis 
said:  ‘We  have  vainly  endeavmred  to  secure  tranquillity  and  obtain 
respect  for  the  rights  to  which  we  were  entitled’  (i.  e.,  the  right  to 
extend  the  domains  of  slavery).  2 * * * Having  thus’formally 

declared  that  the  contemplated  limitation  of  the  territory  within 
which  negro  slavery  should  be  tolerated  was  the  sole  cause  of  the 
pi'ojected  separation.'’  etc.,  etc. 

Such  was  the  “ca.se  of  the  United  States,’’  prepared  under  the  su- 
pervision of  the  Secretary  of  State,  Hamilton  Fish,  and  presented  to 
the  Tribunal  of  Arbitration,  which,  basing  the  justice  of  its  decision 
on  representations  in  it,  awarded  damages  to  the  United  States  in 
the  sum  of  about  fifteen  million  dollars. 

It  totally  reversed  the  Constitutional  relations  ofjthe]States  to 
each  other  and  to  the  Government  which  they  had  created,  and,  by 
garbling  extracts  from  the  proceedings  of  Southern  Conventions  and 
from  Mr.  Davis’s  address,  which,  in  brackets  it  falsely  interpreted, 
it  was  a “case"  which  had  really  nothing  to  support  it. 

' The  trutli  is  carefully  concealed  here.  South  Carolina’s  reason 
for  secession  was  that  thirteen  Northern  States  had  repudiated  one 
of  the  covenants  of  the  Constitution,  and  two  Noi’t hern  States  had 
repudiated  another  of  the  covenants.  But  truth  did’not  suit  the 
purpose  of  the  writer. 

^ Mr.  Davis  said:  ‘‘Through  many  years  of  controversy  with  our 
late  associates  of  the  Northern  States,  we  have  vainly  endeavored  to 
secure  tranquillity  and  obtain  respect  for  the  rights  to  which  we 
were  entitled.  As  a necessity,  not  a choice,  we  have  resorted  to  the 
remedy  of  separation,”  etc.  Wouid  separation  secure  “the  right  to 
extend'the^domains  of  slavery  ” ? 


308 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


Note  Z. 

This  burden  on  the  South  had  to  be  boi-ne  by  people  who  had 
made  almost  supei  human  efforts  in  a four-years  war  against  from 
four  to  five  times  their  own  numbers  in  defense  of  the  doctrine  that 
“all  just  government  rests  on  the  consent  of  the  governed":  a peo- 
ple of  whom  every  able-bodied  man  who  could  be  spared  from 
home  gave  from  three  to  four  years  of  his  time,  without  reward, 
except  bare  subsistence,  to  the  cause  of  the  South ; a people  whose 
soldiers  returned  home  after  the  war  wdthout  money,  without  hope, 
and  trembling  at  the  threats  of  confiscation  and  other  dire  calami- 
ties to  be  visited  upon  them  by  the  insolent  conquerors;  and  a peo- 
ple who  have  for  thirty-one  years  been  subjected  to  all  the  il's  of 
polifical  debauchery  forced  on  them  by  “the  Government." 

A letter  written  by  a Southern  veteran  relating  one  of  his  experi 
ences  deserves  to  be  copied  here  that  the  hardships  of  the  soldiers  of 
the  Confederacy  may  not  be  forgotten.  What  he  says  will  not  be 
disputed  by  any  man  w'ho  served  in  any  of  the  armies.  He  is  criti- 
cising the  complaining  w'arriors  who  fought  in  the  war  with  Spain. 
He  says: 

“I  remember  one  incident  of  my  life  that  I would  like  to  repeat  to 
those  complaining  warriors.  On  July  2.5,  1862,  Kemper's  Brigade  of 
Pickett's  Division  left  Gordonsville,  Va.,  in  light  marching  oi'der 
with  three  days  rations  in  their  haversacks — and  that  was  the  last 
one  we  drew  until  September  20.  almost  two  months.  Incredible, 
but  as  true  as  holy  writ,  and  look  what  we  did.  Our  Brigade  was 
about  two  thousand  strong,  my  regiment,  the  Seventeenth  Virginia, 
had  about  tour  hundred  and  seventy-five  in  all  or  about  four  hun 
dred  and  forty  muskets.  We  crossed  the  Rappahannock  July  27 
and  skirmished  all  the  28th.  and  marched  tq  Salem  that  day  and 
rested.  On  the  night  of  the  29th  we  made  that  famous  march  of 
thirty-five  miles,  for  Stonewall  Jackson  was  staggering  beneath  the 
weight  of  all  Pope’s  army.  We  reached  Thoroughfare  Gap  the 
morning  of  the  30th  and  got  breakfast  of  ’roasting  ears.'  The  next 
two  days  we  fought  the  battle  of  Manassas,  and  that  night  feasted 
on  the  captured  sup>plies.  Onward!  still  onward,  without  a halt, 
men  dropping  out  erery  minute  from  weakness  and  sickness:  over 
the  mountains  into  the  valley:  across  the  Potomac:  into  Maryland, 
living  entirely  on  green  apples  and  corn,  we  fought  the  battle  of 
Crampton  Gap  September  12th.  marched  all  night  and  fought  the 
battle  of  Boousboro  the  14th.  then  northward  and  back,  until  the 
morning  of  the  17th  of  September,  when  my  regiment  drew  up  in 
line  of  battle  at  Sharpsburg  with  46  muskets  and  5 officers,  all  of  us 
barefooted,  not  one  had  tasted  meat  for  a coupjle  of  weeks;  all  were 
in  rags,  and  without  a shred  of  underclothing,  and  all  were  devoured 
with  vermin,  and  we  held  all  day  Burnside’s  column  back,  though 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


309 


they  were  live  to  our  one,  and  I was  the  only  private  unwounded 
and  untouched  at  the  end  of  the  fight.  AVith  all  the  suffering  there 
was  no  complaint — we  took  everything  as  a matter  of  course,”  etc. — 
Fayetteville  (N.  C.)  Observer,  October  20,  1898. 

Note  A a. 

Lest  those  readers  who  belong  to  the  post-bellum  generation  sus 
pect  undue  coloring  if  not  exaggeration  in  regard  to  objectionable 
appointments  and  other  offensive  acts  of  “the  Government,”  some 
documentary  evidence  is  appended : 

Two  yea,rs  after  the  war  closed  Gen.  Daniel  E.  Sickles  was  Mill 
tary  (Tovernor  of  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  among  the  orders 
issued  by  him  was  one  dated  at  Charleston,  S.  C.,  A])ril  11,  1867, 
wherein  he  decreed  as  follow's : 

“XV.  The  Governors  of  North  and  South  Carolina  shall  have 
authority,  within  their  jurisdictions  respectively,  to  reindeve  or  par 
don  any  person  convicted  and  sentenced  by  a civil  court,  and  to  re- 
mit fines  and  penalties. 

•X"  “X*  ■X'  ‘X*  *X*  Tf 

“XVII.  Any  law  or  ordinance, heretofore  in  force  in  North  or  South 
Carolina,  inconsistent  with  the  })rovisions  of  this  General  Order,  is 
hereby  suspended  and  declaimed  inoperative.” 

Again,  on  June  3,  1867,  he  decreed  as  follows: 

“ I.  Sheriff's,  Chiefs  of  Police,  City  Marshals,  Chiefs  of  Detectives, 
and  Town  Marshals  of  the  several  districts,  counties,  cities,  towns 
and  other  municipal  organizations  in  North  Carolina  and  South 
Carolina  will  at  once,  by  letter,  report  to  Bvt.  Col.  Edward  W. 
Hinks,  United  States  Army,  Provost- Marshal -General  of  the  Second 
Military  District.  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  etc. 

■s:-  -x-  7(-  * * -X-  * -X-  X-  -X- 

“VI.  All  Sheriffs,  Constables,  Police  and  other  civil  officers  and 
persons,  whose  duty  it  is  under  the  laws  of  the  2J>'ovuional  govern- 
ments of  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina  to  serve  wn-its  or  make 
arrests,  are  hereby  required  to  obey  and  execute  the  lawful  orders  of 
the  Provost-Marshal  General,”  etc. 

And  General  Sickles  was  graciously  moved  to  order  as  follows  on 
May  15th; 

“ Commanding  officers  of  posts  are  authorized  upon  good  and  suffi- 
cient cause  shown,  to  grant  permission  to  public  officers  to  carry 
arms  when  absolutely  necessary  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,”  etc. 

Succeeding  General  Sickles  as  a preferable  tool  to  carry  out  the 
purposes  of  the  authors  of  the  “Reconstruction  ” measures.  General 
Ed.  R.  S.  Canby  ordered  an  election  to  be  held  in  North  Carolina  on 
the  19th  and  20th  days  of  November,  1867,  for  delegates  to  a so-called 
Constitutional  Convention;  the  ballots  cast  by  the  colored  people 


310 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


and  the  few  whites  who  were  permitted  to  vote — 30.000  of  them  be. 
ing  disfranchised — were  sent  to  Charleston  where  General  Canby 
counted  them  and  declared  the  result;  the  expenses  of  this  outrage 
were  paid  out  of  the  people’s  pockets;  and  among  his  many  other 
acts  which  would  have  disgraced  an  ancient  Persian  satrap.  General 
Canby  issued  the  following  order: 

“ Headquarters  Second  Military  District,  i 
Charleston.  S.  C.,  .June  30,  1868.  \ 

“ General  Order  I 
No.  120.  f 

3.  To  facilitate  the  organization  of  the  new  State  governments  ” — 
under  the  Canby  Constitutions  he  means — “ the  folloAving  appoint- 
ments are  made: 

“To  be  Governor  of  North  Carolina,  W.  W.  Holden,  Governor-elect 
vice  Jonathan  Worth,  removed.” 

And  this  same  man  (Holden),  after  having  been  impeached  by  the 
Legislature  of  North  Carolina,  found  guilty  of  high  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors, driven  from  the  office  of  Governor,  and  declared  incapable 
of  holding  any  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  government  of  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  was  appointed  Postmaster  at  Raleigh  by 
President  Grant,  and  held  that  office  under  “ the  Government  ” 
about  twelve  years. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


311 


CHAPTER  XXL 

THE  ABOLITION  OF  SLAVERY  NOT  AMONG  THE  CAUSES 
OF  THE  WAR. 

The  progress  of  events  and  the  motives  of  men  as 
they  are  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter  would  ren- 
der it  unnecessary  to  point  out  that  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  Southern  States  was  not  among  the  ob- 
jects of  those  who  waged  war  against  these  States;  but 
as  mankind  are  disposed  to  infer  causes  from  results, 
aud  the  literature  of  the  Union  is  disfigured  by  misrep- 
resentations of  the  origin  as  well  as  the  progress  of  the 
war  and  its  so-called  “legitimate”  results,  it  is  deemed 
important  to  give  the  reader  the  evidence  on  this  point 
preserved  in  official  documents.  ’ 

1.  The  platform  on  which  Mr.  Lincoln  stood  for  the 
Presidency  declared  for  “ the  maintenance  inviolate  of 
the  rights  of  the  States,  and  especially  the  right  of  each 
State  to  order  and  control  its  own  domestic  institutions 
according  to  its  own  judgment  exclusively.” 

2.  In  Mr.  Lincoln’s  inaugural  address  he  said:  “I 
have  no  purpose,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  interfere 

‘Occasionally  one  of  the  apologists  of  the  North  unwittingly  ad- 
mits the  true  reason  for  the  subjugation  of  the  Southern  States.  On 
page  747  of  the  Footprints  of  Time  and  Analy.sis  of  our  Government, 
by  Charles  Bancroft,  this  occurs ; 

“We  could  not  reasonably  have  expected  either  the  North  or  the 
South  to  have  acted  differently  from  what  they  did.  While  so  gigan- 
tic a war  was  an  immense  evil . to  allow  the  right  of  peaceable  secession 
would  have  been  ruin  to  the  enterprise  and  thrift  of  the  industrious 
laborer  and  keen-eyed  business  man  of  the  North.  It  would  have 
been  the  greatest  calamity  of  the  age.  War  was  less  to  be  feared.” 

Being  interpreted,  this  means  that  to  the  Noi’th  it  would  be  “the 
greatest  calamity  of  the  age”,  if  they  should  lose  the  power  to 
“share”  by  Federal  law,  “in  the  profits  of  the  unpaid  labor  of  the 
South.” 

See  Note  Ah. 


312 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  States  where  it 
exists.  I believe  I have  no  lawful  rigid  to  do  so,  and  I 
have  no  inclination  to  do  so.’' 

3.  Gen.  John  C.  Fremont,  who  undertook,  without 
any  “application  of  the  Legislature  or  of  the  executive” 
to  “guarantee”  to  Missouri  “a  republican  form  of  gov- 
ernment,” issued  a proclamation,  August  30,  1861.  in 
which  he  “declared  freemen”  all  the  slaves  of  the 
“rebels”  in  the  State;  but  on  September  2 Mr,  Lincoln 
disapproved  the  proclamation. 

J.  On  October  3,  1861,  Gen.  J.  H.  Lane — known  as 
“the  Kansas  Jayhawker  ” — addressed  a letter  from 
Kansas  City  to  Gen.  S.  D.  Sturgis,  in  which  he  said: 
“ My  brigade  is  not  here  for  the  purpose  of  interfering 
in  anywise  with  the  institution  of  slavery.” 

5.  On  the  9th  of  April,  1862,  the  Northern  troops 
evacuated  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  and  on  April  15  Colonel 
Dilworth,  the  Confederate  Commander  at  Tallahassee, 
reported  that  “after  the  evacuation  the  enemy  returned, 
under  a flag  of  truce,  and  were  permitted  to  land  fifty- 
two  negroes,  which  were  taken  in  charge  by  the  com- 
mander of  the  post.” 

6.  General  Hunter,  who  was  placed  in  command  of 
“the  Southern  department,”  by  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  March, 
1862,  issued  a proclamation  on  April  12  declaring 
slavery  abolished;  but  it  was  disapproved  by  Mr.  Lin- 
coln. 

7.  After  the  disasters  to  Mr.  Lincoln’s  troops  on  their 
march  “to  Eichmond,’'  at  Sharpsburg,  at  Fredericks- 
burg, and  at  Chancellorsville,  and  Mr.  Lincoln's  call  for 
more  troops  was  met  in  Massachusetts  and  other  New 
England  States  by  the  declaration  that  New  England 
did  not  desire  to  “preserve  the  Union’’  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  was  willing  to  assist  in  prosecuting  the  war  if 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States  were  an- 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


313 


uounced  as  a purpose  of  “the  Government,”  Mr.  Lin- 
coln yielded  only  so  far  as  to  consent  to  issue  a procla- 
mation declaring  free  the  slaves  of  “rebels.”  ' This  he 
did  on  January  1,  1863.  He  did  not  propose  to  free  all 
the  slaves  in  the  South,  the  only  object  being  to  punish 
the  “rebels.”  The  proclamation  contained  some  inter- 
esting passages  and  some  remarkable  doctrines. 

After  reciting  the  substance  of  a previous  proclama- 
tion, in  which  he  had  warned  the  “rebels”  of  his  pur- 
pose to  issue  this  proclamation,  he  proceeds  to  name  the 
States  in  which  he  proposed  to  free  the  slaves,  but  he 
excepts  “ the  parishes  of  St.  Bernard,  Plaquemines, 
Jefferson,  St.  John,  St.  Charles,  St.  James,  Ascension, 
Assumption,  Terre  Bonne,  Lafourche,  St.  Mary,  St. 
Martin,  and  Orleans,  including  the  city  of  New  Orleans 
(all  in  Louisiana),  fortj^-eight  counties  designated  as 
IVest  Virginia,  and  also  the  counties  of  Berkeley,  Ac- 
comac,  Northampton,  Elizabeth  City,  York,  Princess 
Ann,  and  Norfolk,  including  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and 
Portsmouch”  (all  in  Virginia).  All  this  he  says  he  does 
by  virtue  of  the  power  vested  in  him  “as  Commander- 
in  Chief  of  the  army  and  navy  of  the  United  States,  in 
time  of  actual  armed  rebellion  against  the  authority 

' Writing  to  the  Secretary  of  War  May  19,  1862.  in  answer  to  a let- 
ter inquiring  about  the  disposition  of  the  people  of  Massacliusetts, 
Governor  John  A.  Andrew  said:  “ If  our  people  feel  that  they  are 
going  into  the  South  to  help  fight  rebels,  who  will  kill  and  destroy 
them  by  all  the  means  known  to  savages ; * » * -vvill  use  their 
negro  slaves  against  them  both  as  laborers  and  as  fighting  men”-— 
Andrew  knew,  of  course,  that  neither  slaves  nor  free  negroes  had 
been  enlisted  in  the  Southern  armies — “while  they  themselves  must 
never  fire  at  the  enemy’s  magazine  ” — i.  e.  attack  the  institution  of 
slavery — “ I think  they  will  feel  that  the  draft  is  heavy  on  their  pa- 
triotism. But  if  the  President  will  sustain  General  Hunter.  * * * 
the  roads  will  swarm,  if  need  be,  with  multitudes  whom  New  Eng 
land  would  pour  out  to  obey  your  call.” — Sketch  of  Governor  An- 
drew (1868),  written  by  his  Military  Secretary,  page  73. 


314 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


and  government  of  the  United  States,  and  as  a tit  and 
necessary  war  measure  for  repressing  said  rebellion’’ ; 
though  he  does  not  enlighten  us  as  to  where  and  when 
and  how  this  power  was  vested  in  him. 

He  proceeds  then  to  declare  and  make  known  that  he 
intends  to  repeat  the  crime  charged  against  George  III 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  namely  He  has 
excited  domestic  insurrections  amongst  us,"  by  arming 
the  slaves  so  declared  free  and  sending  them  to  butcher 
the  white  people  of  the  South. 

And  closing,  he  expresses  the  sincere  belief  that  this 
is  “an  act  of  justice,  warranted  by  the  Constitution  ’’ ! 

The  fact  is  beyond  cavil,  therefore,  that  slavery  v.'as 
not  an  issue  in  the  inception  of  the  war,  and  that  when 
emancipation  was  announced  as  one  of  the  objects  of 
the  Northern  government,  the  sole  purpose  was  to 
weaken  the  South.  ‘ And  all  their  dealings  with  the 
race  question  since  the  war  have  had  a common  object 
in  view — the  degradation  of  the  descendants  of  the  men 
who,  in  1765,  comi^elled  the  stamp  master  at  Wilming- 
ton to  resign,  and  extorted  from  Governor  Tryon  a 
promise  not  to  attempt  to  enforce  the  Stamp  Act : of 
the  men  who,  in  February,  1776,  defeated  and  dispersed 
Governor  Martin’s  tory  allies  at  Moore’s  Creek  Bridge: 
of  the  men  who,  in  the  winter  of  1775  and  1776  drove 
Lord  Dunmore  out  of  Virginia;  of  the  men  who  de- 
feated and  drove  away  from  Charleston,  in  the  summer 


'Mr.  Joseph  Holt,  of  Kentucky,  who  as  Judge  Advocate-General 
gained  some  notoriety  from  his  connection  with  the  trial  of  Mrs. 
Surrat,  wrote  a letter  to  Mr.  Lincoln  September  12,  1861,  asking  in 
behalf  of  the  people  of  the  border  States  that  he  disapprove  Fre- 
mont’s proclamation,  and  referred  to  the  “ fears  of  any  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  liberate  suddenly 
in  their  midst  a population  unprepared  for  freedom,  and  whose  pres- 
ence could  not  fail  to  prove  a painful  apprehension,  if  not  a terror, 
to  the  homes  and  families  of  all." — War  Records,  2d  series,  Vol.  I, 
page  768. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


315 


of  1773,  Sir  Henry  Clinton’s  army  and  Sir  Peter  Parker’s 
fleet;  of  the  men  who,  in  the  early  years  of  the  Eevo- 
lution,  sent  cargoes  of  provisions  and  other  supplies  to 
the  suffering  people  of  Boston. 

Such  was  the  object  of  making  voters,  over  the  veto 
of  President  Johnson,  of  the  ex-slaves  in  1867,  before 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  declared  to  have  been 
adopted,  and  of  disfranchising  thousands — estimated  at 
30,000  in  North  Carolina — of  hereditary  voters  in  the 
Southern  States.  ‘ Such  was  the  object  of  subjecting 
the  Southern  States,  in  spite  of  the  President’s  veto,  to 
the  domination  of  the  ex-slaves  of  the  South  and  the 
“carpet-baggers  from  the  North”  ^ Such  was  the 
object  of  the  “force  hills”  and  of  the  “civil  rights”  bills, 
passed  over  the  President’s  veto,  which  the  Supreme 
Court  declared  unauthorized  by  even  the  amendments 
which  the  revolutionists  had  forced  into  the  Constitu- 

* The  revolutionists  forgot  to  enfranchise  the  colored  people  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  till  1871.  Then  the  g-overnment  of  the  District 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  people  thereof;  but  three  years  of 
corruption  and  incompetence,  due,  as  nobody  doubted,  to  the  heavy 
negro  vote  in  the  District,  compelled  a repeal  of  the  law  (June  20, 
1874)  by  the  very  malignants  who  were  sending  bayonets  to  super- 
vise elections  in  the  South  and  insure  “manhood  suffrage.” 

^President  Johnson  referring  in  his  annual  message  of  December 
3,  1867,  to  the  enfranchising  of  the  blacks,  said:  “ It  is  manifestly 
and  avowedly  the  object  of  these  laws  to  confer  upon  the  negroes 
the  privilege  of  voting,  and  to  disfranchise  such  a number  of  white 
citizens  as  will  give  the  former  a clean  majority  of  all  elections  in 
the  Southern  States.  * * * The  subjugation  of  the  States  to 
negro  domination  would  be  worse  than  the  military  despotism  under 
which  they  are  now  suffering.  * * * Already  the  negroes  are  in- 
fluenced by  promises  of  confiscation  and  plunder.  They  are  taught 
to  regard  as  an  enemy  every  white  man  who  has  any  respect  for  the 
rights  of  his  own  race.  * * * of  all  the  dangers  which  our  na 
tion  has  yet  encountered,  none  are  equal  to  those  which  must  result 
from  the  success  of  the  effort  now  making  to  Africanize  the  half  of 
our  country.” 


316 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


tion.  And  such  was  the  object  of  the  election  laws  pro- 
viding for  military  control  of  elections  in  the  Southern 
States.  ^ 

Thirty  years  of  efforts  have  been  made  to  disprove 
this  truth;  and  humanity  and  love  for  the  negro  have 
been  held  up  as  the  sole  motive  of  the  radicals.  ^ But 
actions  speak  louder  than  words. 

They  have  never  elected  a colored  man  to  any  State 
or  county  office ; they  have  never  elected  a colored  man  to 
either  House  of  the  Congress ; they  have  never  appointed 
a colored  man  to  any  Federal  office — even  a fourth- 
class  post-office — in  the  Northern  States;  and  they  have 
denied  him  that  equality  of  opportunity  in  industrial 

' This  crime  against  the  freedom  of  elections,  of  which  no  English 
king  has  been  guilty  in  more  than  two  centuries,  appears  never  to 
have  been  suspected  as  a possibility  by  the  opponents  of  the  Consti- 
tution. Objection,  it  is  true,  was  made  to  the  power  proposed  to  be 
conferred  on  the  Congress  'To  make  or  alter”  regulations  as  to  "times, 
places  and  manner  of  holding  elections  tor  Senators  and  Representa- 
tives,” but  not  even  a lunatic  could  be  found  to  suggest  that  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Northei’n  States  would  ever  send  negro  troops  to 
supervise  elections  in  the  Southern  States.  In  Nos.  LIX.  LX,  and 
LXl  of  the  Federalist.  Mr.  Hamilton  makes  it  clear  that  the  objec- 
tions rested  solely  on  the  ” times  and  places.” 

And,  reader,  the  authors  of  all  these  crimes  had  taken  a solemn 
oath  (prescribed  by  themselves  without  Constitutional  authority)  to 
“bear  true  faith  and  allegiance”  to  the  Constitution.  And  the 
piety  of  the  criminals  was  manifested  in  the  legend  they  had  placed 
on  the  silver  dollar:  “ In  Grod  We  Trust.” 

See  Note  Ac. 

^ In  the  speech  of  Judge  Ewart,  of  North  Carolina,  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  against  the  notorious  “force  bill”  which  was 
passed  by  that  body  in  1890,  under  the  whip  and  sidiu-  of  such  lead- 
ers as  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed  he  said: 

"It  is  a sectional  measure,  designed  almost  entirely  for  the  South.” 

* vf-  -X-  -Si-  * -H-  -X-  -X-  * 

“ I will  never,  by  my  vote  or  voice,  support  a proposition  that 
tends  to  humiliate  or  degrade  my  people.” 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


317 


employments  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  birth-right  of 
every  voter  in  the  United  States.  ‘ 

In  the  August  13,  1896,  number  of  Public  Opinion  . 
are  extracts  from  New  England  newspapers  showing- 
how  the  negro  stands  among  the  whites  of  that  section. 

Zion's  Herald  (Methodist).  Boston,  said:  “Boston, 
representing  the  soul  and  intellect  of  the  North,  was 
the  nursery  of  that  second  great  movement  of  our 
country  that  led  to  the  freedom  of  l-,o00,d00  of  slaves. 

4.4 Qf  8,590  (negroes)  in  the  city  we  find 
about  5,000  of  them  in  four  wards,  and  nearly  the  total 
number  grouped  in  two  small  areas  at  the  West  and 
South  Ends.  The  families  are  massed — ward  II  with 
1,099  negroes,  has  more  than  twice  as  many  dw'ellings 
occupied  by  ten  families  each  as  any  ward  in  the  city. 
There  are  many  well-to-do  colored  people  in  Boston, 

* * and  they  do  not  naturally  choose  the  negro 

sections.  * * * But  the  truth  is,  they  can’t  help 

themselves.  ‘We  can  not  rent  to  colored  people,’  said 
Mr.  S.,  a broker  on  Washington  street,  ‘except  in  the 
negro  quarters.  Property  always  decreases  in  value  as 
the  negroes  increase  in  numbers  about  it.’  * * " 

“There  is  no  more,  striking  difference  between  the 
negroes  of  the  North  and  South  than  in  the  matter  of 
their  labor.  .Here  the  negro  carries  the  hod,  in  the  South 

^ In  the  months  of  September  and  October,  1898,  about  three  hun 
dred  negro  laborers— citizens  of  Southern  States — v.ere  driven  out 
of  Illinois,  whither  they  had  gone  to  work  in  coal  mines,  the  first 
time  by  threats,  and  the  last  time  by  bullets;  and  the  (Tovernor  of 
the  State  not  only  refined  to  protect  them  in  their  rights,  but 
publicly  announced  his  pleasure  at  their  expul.sion.  And  this  was 
done  in  violation  of  the  first  clause  of  section  two.  Article  IV,  of  the 
Federal  Constitution,  which  Governor  Tanner  is  under  a solemn 
oath  to  “support.’-  But  worse  still,  it  was  done  in  violation  of  the 
first  clause  of  the  XlVth  Amendment,  which  Governor  Tanner’s  po- 
litical associates  forced  into  the  Constitution  as  a step  in  the  degra- 
dation of  the  “old  rebel  element’’  in  the  Southern  States. 


318 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


he  lays  the  brick  aad  mortar;  here  he  is  a common 
laborer,  there  he  is  an  artisan.  ^ * 

“ ‘ I have  complained  to  my  people,’  said  Rev.  Dr.  D. 
P.  Roberts,  pastor  of  the  A..  M.  E.  Church  in  Charles 
street,  ‘and  the  white  people  have  complained  to  me. 
that  we  negroes  do  not  take  advantage  of  the  educa- 
tional opportunities  offered  us  by  Boston.  All  the 
schools  and  colleges  of  this  State  are  opened  to  us  as  to 
wdiites;  ^ * but  as  a class  we  do  not  study.  Why  ? 
Massachusetts  opens  her  schools  to  us.  but. she  shuts 
her  shops.  * " * Boston  does  many  splendid  things 

for  the  negro  visitor,  but  other  than  as  a guest  she  has 
no  room  for  him  except  in  the  places  no  white  man 
wants.  * * * She  loves  to  put  a diploma  in  his 
hands,  but  with  it  a ticket  for  the  South. ' 

-‘The  color  line  is  drawn  in  Boston — silently  and  cour- 
teously, but  positively  and  rigoinusly  drawn.  * * 

‘ I came  from  Baltimore  to  Boston,’  said  a negro  in  an- 
swer to  our  question  as  to  how*  he  liked  the  city,  ‘and  I 
am  going  back  to  Baltimore.  The  difference  between 
the  two  places  is  just  this:  There  we  know  what  to  ex- 
pect, and  we  take  our  place;  but  here  you  are  never 
told  and  you  never  know,  but  for  all  that  you  find  your- 
self quietly  pushed  aside  and  left  out.'  " 

And  the  Providence  (P.  I.)  Journcd  apologetically 
says:  “As  it  is  in  Boston,  so  it  is  in  other  Xorthern 
cities.  There  is  no  particular  moral  to  be  drawn  from 
the  fact,  no  especial  complaint  to  be  made  on  either 
side.  There  is  no  ill  feeling  entertained  by  the  whites 
of  the  North  toward  the  negro.  Nobody  wishes  to  de- 
prive him  of  a single  legal  right.  But  when  it  comes  to 
the  intimate  and  private  phases  of  society  the  white 
man  will  erect  such  barriers  as  he  pleases,  whether 
against  the  black,  the  Mongolian,  or  the  uncongenial 
white  person.  This’' — forgetting  the  “civil  rights  bills" 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NOETH. 


319 


supported  in  Congress  by  Massachusetts  and  Ehode 
Island — “is  something  outside  the  pale  of  law,  and  no 
amount  of  legislation  could  effect  a permanent  or  wide- 
spread change.” 

Notk  Ab. 

Accepting  the  theory  that  the  Southern  people  were  fighting  in 
defense  of  slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  some  uninformed  persons, 
even  in  the  South,  have  expressed  surprise  that  the  Confederate 
authorities  did  not  agree  to  surrendei'  to  Mr.  Lincoln when  he 
offered  to  pay  for  the  slaves.  ” But  althoirgh  most  of  the  school  boys 
and  newspaper  readers,  North  and  South,  have  been  reading  about 
this  offer  for  over  thirty  years,  and  most  of  our  channels  of  informa- 
tion have  been  befouled  by  i he  falsehood,  Mr.  Lincoln  made  wo  5-?(c7; 
offer  to  the  Confederate  authorities.  But  it  is  asserted  by  the  apolo- 
gists of  the  North  that  Mr.  Lincoln  did,  on  the  6th  of  March.  1862, 
recommend  to  the  Congress  the  passage  of  an  act  offei’ing  pecuniary 
compensation  to  slave  holders;  and  that  such  an  act  Avas  passed. 
This  is  “history  ” in  Alden's  Cyclopsedia,  But  no  such  an  act  was 
ever  passed  ; and  however  much  Mr.  Lincoln  may  have  personally 
favored  compensation  to  slave-owners,  nobody  has  told  us  where  the 
money  was  to  come  from.  Bid  Mi’.  Lincoln  liropose  to  collect  it  out 
of  the  jjockets  of  the  slave-holders  of  the  South  as  well  as  of  the 
non-slave-holders  of  the  North?  The  only  act  ever  passed  offering 
compensation  to  slave  holders  was  that  of  April  16.  1862,  abolishing 
slavery  in  the  Bistrict  of  Columbia.  It  provided  for  compensation 
to  ••  loyal  ” owners  in  the  Bistrict,  if  the  applicant  for  comiaensation 
could  prove  by  other  testimony  than  his  own  oath  that  he  had  ap- 
lU’oved  all  the  measures  of  the  usurpers. 

Note  Ac. 

Extract  from  a speech  delivered  by  the  author  October  7,  1893.'  in 
the  House  of  Representatives: 

“ The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  House  is  in  session  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discussing  the  bill  H.  R.  2331  “ — to  repeal  Federal  election 
laws.  “ The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  (Mr.  Grady)  is  recog- 
nized. 

“Mr.  Grady: 

* * * * * * * * * 

“ Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  having  given  a brief  resume  of  some  of  the 
decisive  facts  in  our  history,  and  given  what  I believm,  and  what  my 
people  believe,  to  be  the  true  principles  on  which  the  Union  of  these 


Cong.  Rec.,  53d  Cong.,  1st  sess.,  pp.  2303-2306. 


320 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


States  was  founded,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  tell  this  House  what  I 
think  of  some  of  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  election  laws.  I deny, 
of  course,  that  there  is  any  such  thing  in  this  Union  as  a national 
election  or  a Federal  election. 

“The  States  conferred  upon  the  Congre.ss  the  power  to  make 
laws  or  alter  State  laws  prescribing  the  times,  places,  and  manner 
of  holding  elections  for  Repre.sentati\es,  and  the  times  and  manner 
of  choosing  Senators.  I grant  all  this.  But  there  is  another  pro- 
vision of  the  Constitution,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  must  be  permitted  to 
have  its  full  force  when  these  election  laws  are  under  considera- 
tion. It  was  taken  for  granted  that  it  would  be  an  insult  to  the 
dignity  of  a sovereign  State  for  the  U nited  States  to  send  their  soldiei’s 
into  its  borders,  even  for  the  purpose  of  guaranteeing  the  State 
‘against  domestic  violence,’  unless  demand  for  assistance  were 
made  by  the  State  Legislature  or  by  the  Executive  when  the  Legis- 
lature could  not  be  convened;  in  wdiich  case  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment was  to  be  obedient  to  a State.  J remind  gentlemen  that 
this  is  the  meaning  of  that  provision,  that  when  the  State  makes 
that  demand  the  Federal  Govei-mnent  is  to  obey. 

“The  spirit  of  this  provision — indeed  the  well-known  temper  of 
the  States  at  that  time,  when  they  declared  that  the  C'ongre.ss  should 
never  raise  an  army  for  a longer  period  than  two  years — can  not  be 
misunderstood;  and  if  Federal  troops  can  not,  unless  inrdted  by  the 
State,  go  into  its  borders  to  quell  ‘domestic  violence.'  'where  do  we 
find  an  excuse  for  sending  them,  of  our  ovtn  motion,  to  anticipate 
‘domestic  violence,’  and  ‘to  keep  peace  at  the  polls?'  ilr. 
Speaker,  w'ords  have  no  meaning  if  Congress  possesses  this  power. 

“And  how  can  Congress  interfere  with  the  registration  of  voters 
when  their  qualifications  are  absolutely  subject  to  State  determi- 
nation ? I should  doirbt  the  sincerity  of  any  sane  man  who  will 
assert  that  it  can. 

■‘But,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  advocates  of  these  laws  fortify  their  con- 
tention by  citing  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court;  and  1 wonder  how 
a political  party  which  has  scouted  and  trampled  on  decisions  of 
that  court  can  stand  here,  unabashed,  and  ask  us  to  yield  our  opin 
ions  as  lawmakers  to  the  opinion  of  that  court.  It  is  true,  Mr. 
Speakej',  that  the  Supreme  Cotu-t  is  against  us  as  to  some  of  the  sec- 
tions of  these  laws,  but  -what  is  its  argument  ? Here  it  is  in  a nut- 
shell, as  delivered  by  Justice  Miller  in  ex  parte  Yarborough  (110  U. 
S.  R.,  651); 

“‘That  a government  whose  essential  character  is  republican, 
whose  executive  head  and  legislative  body  are  both  elected,  whose 
mo.st  numerous  and  pow'erful  branch  of  the  Legislature  is  elected  by 
the  people  directly,  has  no  power  by  appropriate  laws  to  secure  this 
election  from  the  influence  of  violence,  of  corruption,  and  of  fraud. 


THE  SOUTH  AGAINST  THE  NORTH. 


321 


is  a proposition  so  startling  as  to  arrest  attention  and  demand  the 
greatest  consideration.  ’ 

“ This  reasoning  looks  sound,  Mr.  Speaker,  but  it  is  drawn  from 
the  necessity  of  the  case — not  from  the  Constitution.  And  when  we 
remember  that  the  President  of  the  United  States — our  ‘ king  in 
dress-coat’ — has  more  power  than  any  other  elected  officer  in  the 
world,  the  necessity  for  supervising  his  election  and  guarding  it 
against  fraud  and  corruption  overshadows  any  such  supposed  neces- 
sity for  supervision  of  elections  for  Representatives.  But  the  States 
delegated  no  power  whatever  to  the  Congress  over  the  Presidential 
elections,  while  they  did  make  the  House  of  Representatives  the 
judge  of  the  elections,  returns  and  qualifications  of  its  own  mem- 
bers. The  argument  from  necessity,  therefore,  proves  too  much, 
and  reaches,  in  my  judgment,  a lame  and  impotent  conclusion ; 
indeed,  it  is  founded  on  the  ‘national  idea.’  ” 


21 


APPENDIX. 


A JJKCLARATION  BY  THE  REPRESEA'TATI YES  OF  THE  UNITED 
STATES  OF  AMERICA,  IN  GEN’ERAL  CONGRESS  ASSEMBLED.  * 

When  in  the  conuse  of  human  events  it  becomes  necessary  for  a 
people  to  advance  from  that  subordination  in  which  they  have 
hitherto  remained,  and  to  assume  among  the  powers  of  the  earth 
the  equal  and  independent  station  to  which  the  laws  of  Mature  and 
of  Nature’s  Gfod  entitle  them,  a decent  respect  to  the  opinions  of 
mankind  requires  that  they  should  declare  the  causes  which  impel 
them  to  the  strange  separation. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  sacred  and  undeniable:  that  all  men 
are  ci’eated  equal  independent;  that  from  that  equal  creation 
they  derive  rights  inherent  & inahenable,  among  which  are  the 
preservation  of  life  <fc  liberty  & the  pursuit  of  happine.ss;  that 
to  secure  the.se  ends,  governments  are  instituted  among  men.  deriv- 
ing their  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed:  that  when- 
ever any  form  of  government  shall  become  de.structiveof  these  ends, 
it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  & to  institute 
a new  governtuent,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  princi])les  6: 
organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely 
to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness.  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate 
that  governments  long  established  should  not  be  changed  for  light 
and  transient  causes:  and  accordingly  all  experience  hath  shown 
that  mankind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  are 
accustomed.  But  when  a long  train  of  abuses  and  usurpations,  be- 
gun at  a distinguished  period,  and  pursuing  invariably  the  same 
object,  evinces  a design  to  subject  them  to  arbitrary  power,  it  is 
their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw  off  such  government  & to 
provide  new'  guards  for  their  future  security.  Such  has  been  the 
patient  sufferance  of  these  colonies;  and  such  is  now  the  necessity 
which  constrains  them  to  expunge  them  former  systems  of  go^'ern- 
ment.  The  history  of  his  present  majesty  is  a history  of  unremit- 
ting injuries  and  usurpations,  among  wdiich  no  fact  stands  single  or 

PTefferson’s  draft,  taken  from  a facsimile  in  Conrad's  Lives  of  the 
Signers  and  copied  literally,  except  that  canital  letters  are  substi- 
tuted at  the  beginnings  of  sentences  for  the  small  ones  almost  ins'a- 
riably  used  by  Jefferson. 


APPENDIX. 


323 


solitary  to  contradict  the  uniform  tenor  of  the  rest,  all  of  which 
have  in  direct  object  the  establishment  of  an  absolute  tyranny  over 
these  states.  To  prove  this,  let  facts  be  submitted  to  a candid  world, 
for  the  truth  of  which  we  pledge  a faith  yet  unsullied  by  falsehood : 

He  has  refused  his  assent  to  laws  the  most  wholesome  and  neces- 
sary for  the  public  good; 

He  has  forbidden  his  governors  to  pass  laws  of  immediate  & 
pressing  importance,  unless  suspended  in  their  operation  till  his 
assent  should  be  obtained ; and  when  so  suspended,  he  has  neglected 
utterly  to  attend  to  them. 

He  has  refused  to  pass  other  laws  for  the  accommodation  of  large 
districts  of  people  unless  those  people  would  relinquish  the  right  of 
representation,  a right  inestimable  to  them,  & formidable  to 
tyrants  only : 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places  unusual,  un. 
comfortable,  & distant  from  the  depository  of  their  public  records, 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  fatiguing  them  into  conqiliance  with  his 
measures ; 

He  has  dissolved  representative  houses  repeatedly  & continually 
for  opposing  with  manly  firmness  his  invasions  on  the  rights  of  the 
people: 

When  dissolved,  he  has  refused  for  a long  space  of  time  to  cause 
others  to  be  elected,  whereby  the  legislative  powers,  incapable  of 
annihilation,  have  returned  to  the  people  at  large  for  their  exercise, 
the  state  remaining  in  the  mean  time  exposed  to  all  the  dangers  of 
invasion  from  without  & convulsions  within: 

He  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  population  of  these  states;  for 
that  purpose  obstructing  the  laws  for  naturalization  of  foreigners; 
refusing  to  pass  others  to  encourage  their  migrations  hither;  & rais- 
ing the  conditions  of  new  appropriations  of  lands : 

He  has  suffered  the  administration  of  justice  totally  to  cease  in 
some  of  these  colonies,  refusing  his  assent  to  laws  for  establishing 
judiciary  powers: 

He  has  made  our  judges  dependent  on  his  will  alone,  for  the  ten- 
ure of  their  offices,  and  amount  of  their  salaries : 

He  has  erected  a multitude  of  new  offices  by  a self  assumed  power, 
& sent  hither  swarms  of  officers  to  harrass  our  people  & eat  out 
their  substance ; 

He  has  kept  among  us  in  times  of  peace  standing  armies  & ships 
of  war: 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  military  independent  of  & superior 
to  the  civil  power; 

He  has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a jurisdiction  for- 
eign to  our  constitutions  and*’ acknowledged  by  our  laws;  giving  his 
assent  to  their  pretended  acts  of  legislation,  tor  quartering  large 


324: 


APPENDIX. 


bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us ; for  protecting  them  by  a mock- 
trial  from  punishment  for  any  murders  they  should  commit  on  the 
inhabitants  of  these  states ; for  cutting- off  our  trade  with  all  parts 
of  the  world,  tor  imposing  taxes  on  us  without  our  consent;  for  de- 
Ijriving  us  of  the  benefit  of  trial  by  jury ; for  transporting  us  beyond 
seas  to  be  tried  for  pretended  offences;  for  taking  away  our  char- 
ters, & altering  firndamentally  the  forms  of  our  governments,  for- 
suspending  our  own  legislatures  & declar-ing  themselves  invested 
with  power-  to  legislate  for  rrs  in  all  cases  whatsoever; 

He  has  abdicated  government  her-e,  withdrawing  his  governors.  A 
declaring-  us  oirt  of  his  allegiance  and  protection ; ■ 

He  has  plundered  our-  seas,  ravaged  our  coasts,  burnt  our  towns 
A destroyed  the  lives  of  our  people-; 

He  is  at  this  tirrre  trarrsporting  large  anrries  of  foreign  mercenaries 
to  cotrrpleai  the  works  of  death  desolatiorr  & tyranny  already  begun 
with  cit-currrstances  of  cruelty  A urrworthv  the  head  of  a 

civilized  natiorr : 

He  has  errdeavored  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  our  frontiers  the 
nrerciless  Indiair  savages,  whose  knowp  rule  of  warfare  is  an  undis- 
tinguished destruction  of  all  ages,  sexes.  A conditions  of  existence; 

He  has  incited  treasonable  insurrectiorrs  of  our  fellow-citizerrs, 
with  the  allurerrrerrts  of  forfeiture  A confiscation  of  our  property; 

He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature  itself,  violating  its 
most  .sacred  rights  of  life  A liberty  in  the  persons  of  a distant  people 
who  never  offended  him.  captivating  A carrying  them  into  slavery 
in  another  hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their  trans 
portation  thither.  This  ijiratical  warfare  the  opprobrium  of  Uifidel 
powers,  is  the  warfare  of  the  Christian  kiitg  of  Grreat  Britain  deter 
mined  to  keep  open  a market  where  ilElX  should  be  bought  and 
sold.  He  has  pro.stituted  his  negative  for  suppressing  every  legisla 
tive  attempt  to  prohibit  or  restrain  this  execrable  commerce ; and 
that  this  assemblage  of  hornu-s  might  want  no  fact  of  distinguished 
die.  he  is  now  exciting  those  very  people  to  rise  in  arms  among 
us,  and  to  purchase  that  liberty  of  which  he  has  deprived  them,  by 
murdering- the  people  upon  whom  he  also  obtruded  them;  thus  pay- 
ing- off'  former  crimes  committed  against  the  Hherties  of  cne  people, 
with  crimes  which  he  urges  them  to  commit  against  the  tires  of 
another. 

In  every  stage  of  these  oppressions  " we  have  petitioned  for  re- 
dress in  the  most  humble  terms" ; our  repeated  petitions  "have  been 
answered  by  repeater!  injuries."  A prince  whose  character  is  thus 
marked  "by  every  act  which  may  define  a tyrant."  is  unfit  to  be  the 
"ruler  of  a peoi)le  who  mean  to  be  free."  Future  ages  ^^ill  scarce 
believe  that  the  hardiness  of  one  man  adventured  within  the  short 


APPENDIX. 


325 


compass  of  twelve  years  only  * * * ' over  a people  fo.stered  & 

fixed  in  principles  of  liberty. 

Nor  have  vve  been  wanting  iii  attentions  to  our  British  brethren. 
We  have  warned  them  from  time  to  time  of  attempts  by  their  legis- 
lature to  extend  a jurisdiction  over  these  our  states.  We  have  re- 
minded them  of  the  circumstances  of  our  enugration  & settlement 
here,  no  one  of  which  could  warrant  so  strange  a pretension:  that 
these  were  effected  at  the  expence  of  our  own  blood  & treasure,  un- 
assisted by  the  wealth  or  the  strength  of  Great  Britain:  that  in  con- 
stituting indeed  our  .several  forms  of  government,  we  had  adopted 
one  common  king,  thereby  laying'a  foundation  for  perpetual  league 
and  amity  with  them : but  that  submission  to  their  parliament  was 
no  part  of  our  constitution,  nor  ever  in  idea  if  history  may  be  cred- 
ited: and  we  appealed  to  their  native  justice  &:  magnanimity,  as 
well  as  to  the  ties  of  our  common  kindred  to  disavow  these  usurpa 
tions  which  were  likely  to  interrupt  our  correspondence  & connec- 
tion. They  too  have  been  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice  & of  consan- 
guinity, and  when  occasions  have  been  given  them,  by  the  regular 
course  t>f  their  laws,  of  removing  from  their  councils  the  disturbers 
of  our  hai’uiony,  they  have  by  their  free  election  re-established  them 
to  power.  At  this  very  time  they  too  are  permitting  their  chief 
magistrate  to  send  over  soldiers  not  only  of  our  common  blood,  but 
Scotch  & foreign  mercenaries  to  invade  & deluge  us  * * * ^ 

These  tacts  have  given  the  last  stab  h)  agonizing  affection,  and 
manly  spirit  bids  us  to  renounce  forever  these  unfeeling  brethren. 
We  must  endeavor  to  forget  our  former  love  foi'  them,  and  to  hold 
them  as  we  hold  the  rest  of  mankind  enemies  in  war,  in  i^eace 
friends.  We  might  have  been  a free  & a great  people  together;  but 
a communication  of  grandeur  & of  freedom  it  seems  is  below  their 
dignity.  Be  it  so  since  they  will  have  it:  the  road  to  glory  and  hap- 
piness is  open  to  us  too;  we  will  climb  it  separately,  and  acquiesce 
in  the  necessity  which  pronounces  our  everlasting  adieu. 

We  therefore  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  General  Congress  assembled  do  in  the  name  & by  authority  of  the 
good  people  of  these  states  reject  and  renounce  all  allegiance  & sub- 
jection to  the  king  of  Great  Britain  & all  others  who  may  hereafter 
claim  by,  through,  or  under  them;  we  utterly  dissolve  & break  off 
all  political  connection  which  may  have  heretofore  subsisted  be 
tw'een  us  & the  people  or  parliament  of  Great  Britain;  and  finally 
we  do  assert  and  declare  these  colonies  to  be  free  and  independent 
states,  and  that  as  free  and  independent  states  they  shall  hereafter 
have  power  to  levy  war  conclude  peace,  contract  alliances,  estab- 

' These  blanks  are  where  ei’asures  have  rendered  Jefferson's  words 
illegible. 


326 


APPENDIX. 


lish  commerce,  & to  do  all  other  acts  and  things  which  independent 
states  may  of  right  do.  And  for  the  support  of  this  declaration  we 
mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred 
honor. 

ARTICLES  OF  CONFEDERATION.'' 

Art.  1.  The  style  of  this  confederacy  shall  be,  ‘The  United  States 
of  America.” 

Art.  2.  Each  state  retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom,  and  independ- 
ence, and  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right,  which  is  not  by  this 
confederation  expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  in  Congi-ess 
assembled. 

Art.  3.  The  said  states  hereby  severally  enter  into  a firm  league 
of  friendship  with  each  other  for  their  common  defence,  the  security 
of  their  liberties,  and  their  mutual  and  general  welfare:  binding 
themselves  to  assist  each  other  against  all  force  offered  to,  or  at- 
tacks made  upon  them,  or  any  of  them,  on  account  of  religion,  sov- 
ereignty, trade,  or  any  other  pretence  whatever. 

Art.  4.  The  better  to  secure  and  perpetuate  mutual  friendship, 
and  intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  different  states  in  this 
Union,  the  free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these  states,  paupers,  vaga- 
bonds, and  fugitives  from  justice,  excepted,  shall  be  entitled  to  all 
privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens  in  the  several  states:  and 
the  people  of  each  state  shall  have  free  ingress  and  regress  to  and 
from  any  other  state,  and  shall  enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of 
trade  and  commerce  subject  to  the  same  duties,  impositions,  and 
restrictions,  as  the  inhabitants  thereof  respectively,  provided  that 
such  restrictions  shall  not  extend  so  far  as  to  prevent  the  removal 
of  property  imported  into  any  state  to  any  other  state,  of  which  the 
owner  is  an  inhabitant;  provided  also,  that  no  imitosition,  duties, 
or  restriction,  shall  be  laid  on  the  property  of  the  United  States  or 
either  of  them. 

If  any  person  guilty  of  or  charged  with  treason,  felony,  or  other 
high  misdemeanor,  in  any  state,  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found 
in  any  of  the  United  States,  he  shall,  upon  demand  of  the  governor 
or  executive  power  of  the  state  from  which  he  fled,  be  delivered  up 
and  removed  to  the  state  haxdng  jurisdiction  of  his  offence. 

Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  of  these  states  to  the 
records,  acts  and  judicial  proceedings  of  the  courts  and  magistrates 
of  every  other  state. 

Art.  5.  For  the  more  conx^euient  management  of  the  general  in- 
terests of  the  United  States,  delegates  shall  be  annually  appointed 

* Some  unimirortant  words  and  phrases  are  omitted. 


APPENDIX. 


327 


in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  of  each  state  shall  direct  to  meet 
in  Congress  on  the  first  Monday  in  November,  in  every  year,  with  a 
power  reserved  to  each  state  to  recall  its  delegates  or  any  of  them,  at 
any  time  within  the  year,  and  to  send  others  in  their  stead  for  the 
remainder  of  the  year. 

No  state  shall  be  represented  in  Congress  by  less  than  two,  nor  by 
more  than  seven  members ; and  no  person  shall  be  capable  of  being  a 
delegate  for  more  than  three  years  in  any  term  of  six  years ; nor 
shall  any  person,  being  a delegate,  be  capable  of  holding  any  office 
under  the  United  States,  for  which  he,  or  another  for  his  benefit, 
receives  any  salary,  fees,  or  emoluments  of  any  kind. 

Each  state  shall  maintain  its  own  delegates  in  a meeting  of  the 
states,  and  while  thev  act  as  members  of  the  committee  of  the  state.s. 

In  determining  questions  in  the  United  States  in  Congress  assem- 
bled, each  state  shall  have  one  vote. 

Freedom  of  speech  and  debate  in  Congress  shall  not  be  impeached 
or  questioned  in  any  court  or  place  out  of  Congress;  and  the  mem- 
bers of  Congress  shall  be  protected  in  their  persons  from  arrests  and 
imprisonments,  during  the  time  of  their  going  to  and  from  and  at- 
tendance on  Congress,  except  for  treason,  felony,  or  breach  of  the 
peace. 

Art.  6.  No  state,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States  in  Con- 
gre.ss  assembled;  shall  send  any  embassy  to,  or  receive  any  embassy 
from,  or  enter  into  any  conference,  agreement,  alliance,  or  treaty, 
with  any  king,  prince,  or  state:  nor  shall  any  person  holding  any 
office  of  profit  or  trust  under  the  United  States,  or  any  of  them,  ac- 
cept of  any  [jresent,  emolument,  office  or  title  of  any  kind  whatever, 
from  any  king,  prince,  or  foreign  state:  nor  shall  the  United  States 
in  Congress  assembled,  or  any  of  them,  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

No  two  or  more  states  shall  enter  into  any  treaty,  confederation, 
or  alliance  whatever,  betweeir  them,  without  the  consent  of  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  specifying  accurately  the  i)ur- 
poses  for  which  the  same  is  to  be  entered  into  and  how  long  it  .shall 
continue. 

No  state  shall  lay  any  imposts  or  duties,  which  may  interfere  with 
any  stipulations  in  treaties  entered  into  by  the  United  States  in 
Congress  assembled,  with  any  king,  prince,  or  state,  in  pursuance 
of  any  ti-eaties  already  propo.sed  by  Congress  to  the  courts  of  France 
and  Spain. 

No  vessel-of-war  shall  be  kept  up  in  time  of  peace  by  any  state, 
except  such  number  only  as  shall  be  deemed  necessary  by  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled  for  the  defence  of  such  state  or  its 
trade;  nor  shall  any  body  of  forces  be  kept  up  by  any  state  in  time 
of  peace,  except  such  number  only  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled,  shall  be  deemed  requisite  to  garrison 


3^8 


APPENDIX.  • 


the  forts  necessary  for  the  defence  of  such  state;  but  ev^ery  .state 
shall  always  keep  up  a well  regulated  and  disciplined  militia,  suffi 
ciently  armed  and  accoutred,  and  shall  provide  and  have  constantly 
ready  for  u.se,  in  public  stores,  a due  number  of  field-pieces  and 
tents,  and  a proper  quantity  of  arms,  ammunition,  and  camp 
equipage. 

No  state  shall  engage  in  any  war  without  the  con.sent  of  the  United 
ytates  in  Congress  assembled  unless  such  state  be  actually  invaded 
by  enemies  or  shall  have  received  certain  advice  of  a resolution  be- 
ing formed  by  some  nation  of  Indians  to  invade  such  state,  and  the 
danger  is  so  imminent  as  not  to  admit  of  a delay  till  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled  can  be  consulted;  nor  shall  any  state 
grant  commissions  tc  any  ships  or  vessels-of-war,  nor  letters  of 
marque  or  reprisal,  except  it  be  after  a declaration  of  war  by  the 
United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  and  then  only  against  the 
kingdcni  or  state,  and  the  subjects  thereof,  against  which  war  has 
been  so  declared,  and  under  such  regulations  as  shall  be  established 
by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  unless  such  state  be  in 
tested  by  pirates,  in  which  case  vessels- of  war  may  be  fitted  out  for 
that  occasion,  and  kept  so  long  as  the  danger  shall  continue,  or  un- 
til the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  determine  other 
wise. 

Art.  7.  When  land  forces  are  raised  by  any  state  for  the  common 
defence,  all  officers  of  or  under  the  rank  of  colonel.  sha'I  heap- 
pointed  by  the  legislature  of  each  state  respectively,  by  whom  such 
forces  shall  be  raised,  or  in  such  manner  as  such  state  shall  direct, 
and  all  vacancies  shall  be  filled  up  by  the  state  which  first  made  the 
appointment. 

Art.  8.  All  charges  of  war.  and  all  other  expenses  that  shall  be 
incurred  for  the  common  defence  or  general  welfare,  and  allowed  by 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  shall  be  defrayed  out  of  a 
common  treasury,  which  shall  be  supplied  by  the  several  states  in 
projtortion  to  the  value  of  all  land  within  each  state  granted  to  or 
surveyed  for  any  person,  as  such  land  and  the  buildings  and  im- 
provements thereon  shall  be  estimated  according  to  such  mode  as 
the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  from  time  to  time 
direct  and  appoint. 

The  taxes  for  paying  that  proportion  shall  be  laid  and  levied  by 
the  authority  and  direction  of  the  legislatures  of  the  several  states, 
within  the  time  agreed  upon  by  the  United  States  in  Congress  as 
sembled. 

Art.  9.  The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  have  the 
sole  and  exclusive  right  and  power  of  determining  on  ireace  and 
war,  except  in  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  sixth  article — of  sending 
and  receiving  ambassador!? — entering  into  treaties  and  alliances: 


APPENDIX, 


32 


provided,  that  no  treaty  of  commerce  shall  be  made  whereby  the 
legislative  power  of  the  respective  states  shall  be  restrained  from 
imposing  such  imposts  and  duties  on  foreigners  as' their  own  people 
are  subjected  to,  or  from  prohibiting  the  exportation  or  importation 
of  any  species  of  goods  or  commodities  whatsoever— of  establishing 
rules  for  deciding  in  all  eases,  what  captures  f>n  land  or  water  shall 
be  legal,  and  in  what  manner  prizes  taken  by  land  or  naval  foi'- 
ces  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  sliaill  be  divided  or  appropri- 
ated— of  granting  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in  times  of  peace — 
appointing  courts  for  the  trial  of  piracies  and  felonies  committed  on 
the  high  seas,  and  establishing  courts  for  receiving  and  determining 
finally  appeals  in  all  cases  of  captures;  provided,  that  no  member 
of  Congress  shall  be  appointed  a judge  of  any  of  the  said  courts. 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  also  be  the  last 
resort  on  appeal  in  all  disputes  and  differences  now  subsisting  or 
that  hereafter  may  arise  between  two  or  moie  states  * * * and 
the  judgment  and  sentence  of  the  court  shall  be  final  and  conclu- 
sive * * * ; provided  also  that  no  state  shall  be  deprived  of  ter 

ritory  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States, 

All  controversies  concerning  the  private  right  of  soil,  claimed  un- 
der different  grants  of  two  or  more  states  * * * shall,  on  the 

petition  of  either  party  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  be 
finally  determined,  as  near  as  may  be,  in  the  same  mannei  as  is  be- 
fore prescribed  for  deciding  disputes  respecting  territorial  jurisdic- 
tion between  different  states. 

The  United  Slates  in  Congress  assembled  shall  also  have  the  sole 
and  exclusive  right  and  power  of  regulating  the  alloy  and  value  of 
coin  sti'uck  by  their  own  authority,  or  by  that  of  the  respective 
states— fixing  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures  * * — reg- 
ulating the  trade  and  managing  all  affairs  with  the  Indians  not 
members  of  any  of  the  states;  provided  that  the  legislative  right 
of  any  state  within  its  own  limits  be  not  infringed  or  violated — 
establishing  and  regulating  postoffices  from  one  state  to  another 
* * * and  exacting  such  postage  on  the  papers  passing  through 
the  same,  as  may  be  requisite  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  said 
office — ajjpointing  all  officers  of  the  land  forces  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States  excepting  regimental  officers — appointing  all  the  offi- 
cers of  the  naval  forces,  and  commissioning  all  officers  whatever  in 
the  service  of  the  United  States — making  rules  for  the  government 
and  regulation  of  the  said  land  and  naval  forces. 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  have  authority  to 
apijoint  a committee  to  sit  in  the  recess  of  Congress,  to  be  denomi- 
nated’‘a  committee  of  the  states,  ” and  to  consist  of  one  delegate 
from  each  state;  and  to  appoint  such  other  committees  and  civil 
officers  as  may  be  necessary  for  managing  the  general  affairs  of  the 


330 


APPENDIX. 


United  States,  under  their  direction — to  appoint  one  of  their  num- 
ber to  preside  * * * . — to  ascertain  the  necessary  sums  of  money 
to  be  raised  * * * and  to  appropriate  and  apply  the  same  * * * 
— to  borrow  money  or  emit  bills  on  the  credit  of  «the  United  States 

* * * — to  build  and  equip  a navy — to  agree  upon  the  number  of 
land  forces,  and  to  make  requisitions  from  each  state  for  its  quota, 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  white  inhabitants  in  such  state; 
which  requisition  shall  be  binding,  and  thereupon  the  legislature  of 
each  state  shall  appoint  the  regimental  officers,  raise  the  men,  and 
clothe,  arm,  and  equip  them,  in  a soldier  like  manner,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  United  States.  * * * 

The  United  States  in  Congress  assembled  shall  never  engage  in  a 
war,  nor  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  in  time  of  peace,  nor 
enter  into  any  treaties  or  alliances,  nor  coin  money,  nor  regulate  the 
value  thereof,  nor  ascertain  the  sums  and  expenses  necessary  for  the 
defence  and  welfare.  * * * . nor  einit  bills  nor  borrow  money, 

* * * , nor  appropriate  money,  nor  agree  upon  the  number  of  ves- 
sels  of  war  to  be  built  or  purchased,  or  the  number  of  land  or  sea 
forces  to  be  raised,  nor  appoint  a commander  in-chief  of  the  army 
or  navy,  unless  nine  states  assent  to  the  same;  nor  shall  a question 
on  any  other  point,  except  for  adjourning  from  day  to  day.  be  de- 
termined, unless  by  the  votes  of  a majority  of  the  United  States. 

-x-  -:f  -» 

(Then  follow  regulations  as  to  places  of  meeting,  length  of  recesses, 
publishing  proceedings,  recording  yea  and  nay  votes,  etc.) 

Art.  10.  The  committee  of  the  states,  or  any  nine  of  them,  shall  be 
authorized  to  execute,  in  the  recess  of  Congress,  such  of  the  powers 
of  Congress  as  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled,  by  the  con- 
sent of  nine  states,  shall  from  time  to  time  think  expedient  to  vest 
them  with;  provided  that  no  iiower  be  delegated  to  the  said  com- 
mittee, for  the  exercise  of  which  * * * the  voice  of  nine  states 

* * * is  requisite. 

Art,  11.  Canada,  acceding  to  this  confederation,  and  joining  in 
the  measures  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into,  and  enti- 
tled to,  all  the  advantages  of  this  Union ; but  no  other  colony  shall 
be  admitted  into  the  Same  unless  such  admission  be  agreed  to  by 
nine  states. 

Art.  12.  All  bills  of  credit  emitted,  moneys  borrowed,  and  debts 
contracted,  by  or  under  the  authority  of  (the  Continental)  Congress, 
before  the  assembling  of  the  United  States,  in  pursuance  of  the 
present  confederation,  shall  be  deemed  and  considered  as  a charge 
against  the  United  States.  * * * 

Alt.  13.  Every  state  shall  abide  by  the  decision  of  the  United 
States  in  Congress  assembled,  on  all  questions  which,  by  this  con- 
federation, are  submitted  to  them.  And  the  articles  of  this  confed- 


APPENDIX. 


331 


eratidn  shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every' state,  and  the  Union 
shall  be  perpetual ; nor  shall  any  alteration  at  any  time  hereafter  be 
made  in  any  of  them,  unless  such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  a Con- 
gi’ess  of  the  Unit»d  States,  and  be  afterwards  confirmed  by  the  leg- 
islature of  every  state. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Preamble. 

We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a more  per 
feet  Union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide 
for  the  common  defence,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the 
blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and 
establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

Article  I.  Legislative  Department. 

Section  I.  Congress  in  General. 

All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested  in  a Congress 
of  the  United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives. 

Section  II.  House  of  Representatives. 

1.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed  of  members 
chosen  every  second  year  by  the  ireople  of  the  several  States,  and 
the  electors  in  each  State  shall  have  the  qiialificatioiis  requisite  for 
electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legislature. 

2.  No  person  shall  be  a Representative  who  shall  not  have  attained 
the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven  years  a citizen  of  the 
United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of 
that  State  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

3.  Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States  which'may  be  included  within  this  Union,  accord- 
ing to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by  ad 
ding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound  to 
service  for  a term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed,  three- 
fifths  of  all  other  persons.  The  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made 
within  three  years  after  the  first  meeting  of  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  and  within  every  subse.'juent  term  of  ten  years,  in 
such  manner  as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  number  of  Represen- 
tatives shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand,  but  each 
State  shall  have  at  least  one  Representative:  and  until  such  enu- 
meration shall  be  made,  the  State  of  Neu)  Hampshire  shall  be  en- 
titled to  choose  three,  3Iassachusetts  eight,  Rhode  Island  and  Provi- 
dence Plantations  one,  Connecticut  five.  New  York  six,  New  Jersey 


332 


APPENDIX. 


four,  Pennsylva nia  eight,  Delaware  one,  Maryland  six,  Virginio 
ten,  North  Carolina  five,  South  Carolina  five,  and  (Georgia  three. 

4.  - When  vacancies  happen  in  the  representation  from  any  State, 
the  executive  authority  thereof  .shall  issue  writs  of  election  to  flll 
such  vacancies. 

5.  The  House  of  Representatives  shall  choose  their  Speaker  and 
other  officers,  and  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment. 

Section  III.  Senate. 

1.  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  becompo.sed  of  two  Sena 
tors  from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legislatui-e  thereof,  for  six  years: 
and  each  Senator  shall  have  one  vote. 

2.  Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  consequence  of 
the  first  election,  they  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be  into 
three  classes.  The  seats  of  the  Senators  of  the  first  class  shall  be 
vacated  at  the  expiration  of  the  second  year;  of  the  seimnd  class,  at 
the  expiration  of  the  fourth  year,  and  of  the  third  class,  at  the  ex 
piration  of  the  sixth  year,  so  that  one-third  may  be  chosen  every 
second  year;  and  if  vacancies  happen  by  resignation  or  otherwise 
during  the  recess  of  the  legislature  of  any  State,  the  executive 
thereof  may  make  temporary  appointments  until  the  next  meeting 
of  the  legislature,  which  shall  then  fill  such  vacancies. 

3.  No  person  shall  be  a Senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the 
age  of  thirty  years,  and  been  nine  years  a citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  who  shall  not.  wiien  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that 
State  for  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

4.  The  Vice-President  of  the  United  Mates  shall  be  President  of 
the  Senate,  but  shall  have  no  vote,  unless  they  be  equally  divided. 

5.  The  Senate  shall  choose  their  other  officers,  and  also  a Presi- 
dent/rro  tempore  in  the  absence  of  the  Vice-President,  or  when  he 
shall  exercise  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States. 

6.  The  Senate  shall  have  the  sole  power  to  try  all  impeachments. 
AVhen  sitting  for  that  purpose,  they  shall  be  on  oath  or  affirmation. 
When  the  Pi-esident  of  the  United  States  is  tried,  the  Chief  Ju.stiee 
shall  pre.side:  and  no  person  shall  be  convicted  without  the  concur- 
rence of  tw’o-thirds  of  the  members  present. 

T.  .Judgment  in  cases  of  impeachment  shall  not  extend  further 
than  to  removal  from  office,  and  disqualification  to  hold  and  enjoy 
any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  the  United  States:  but  the 
party  convicted  shall,  nevertheless,  be  liable  and  subject  to  indict- 
meni.  irial,  judgment,  and  punishment,  according  to  law. 


APPENDIX. 


333 


Section  IV.  Both  Hou.se.i. 

1.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Senators 
and  Representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the  Legis- 
lature thereof:  but  the  Congre.ss  may  at  any  time  by  law  make  or 
alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of  choosing  Senators. 

2.  The  Congress  shall  assemble  at  least  once  in  every  year,  and 
such  meeting  shall  be  on  the  first  Monday  in  December,  unle.ss  they 
shall  by  law  appoint  a different  day. 

Section  V.  The  Houses  Separately. 

1.  Each  house  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  returns,  and 
qualifications  of  its  own  members,  and  a majority  of  each  sliall  con- 
stitute a quorum  to  do  business  ; but  a smaller  number  may  adjourn 
from  day  to  day,  and  maybe  authoizedto  compel  the  attendance  of 
absent  members,  in  such  manner,  and  under  such  penalties,  as  each 
house  may  provide. 

2.  Each  house  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  punish 
its  members  for  disorderly  behavior,  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
two  thirds,  expel  a nrember. 

3.  Each  house  shall  keep  a journal  of  its  proceedings,  and  from 
time  to  time  publish  the  same,  excepting  such  parts  as  may  in  their 
judgment  require  secrecy,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  of  the  members  of 
either  house  on  any  que.stion  shall,  at  the  desire  of  one-fifth  of  those 
present,  be  entered  on  the  journal. 

4.  Neither  house,  during  the  session  of  Congress,  shall,  without 
the  consent  of  the  other,  adjourn  for  more  than  three  days,  nor  to 
any  other  place  than  that  in  which  the  two  houses  shall  be  sitting. 


Section  VI.  Primleges  and  DisahiUties  of  Members. 

1.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  receive  a compensation 
for  their  services,  to  be  ascertained  by  law  and  paid  out  of  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  United  States.  They  shall,  in  all  cases  except  treason, 
felony,  and  breach  of  the  peace,  be  privileged  from  arre.st  during 
their  attendance  at  the  session  of  their  respective  houses,  and  in 
going  to  and  returning  from  the  same ; and  for  any  speech  or  debate 
in  either  house  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in  any  other  place. 

2.  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the  time  for  which 
he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  office  under  the  authority 
of  the  United  States,  which  shall  have  been  created,  or  the  emolu- 
ments whereof  shall  have  been  increased  during  such  time ; and  no 
person  holding  any  office  under  the  United  States  shall  be  a mem- 
ber of  either  house  during  his  continuance  in  office. 


334 


APPENDIX. 


Section  VII.  Mode  of  Passing  Lawa. 

1.  All  bills  for  raising  revenue  shall  originate  in  Jhe  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives; but  the  Senate  may  proposed’  concur  with  amend- 
ments as  on  other  bills. 

‘3.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  Senate  shall,  before  it  become  a law,  be  presented  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States;  if  he  approve  he  shall  sign  it. 
but  if  not  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house  in 
which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objections  at 
large  on  their  journal  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it.  If  after  such 
reconsitleration  two  thirds  of  that  house  shall  agree  to  pass  the  bill, 
it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  the  objections,  to  the  other  house,  by 
which  it  shall  likewise  be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two- 
thirds  of  that  house  it  shall  become  a law.  But  in  all  such  cases  the 
votes  of  both  houses  shall  be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  the 
names  of  the  persons  voting  for  and  against  the  bill  shall  be  entered 
on  the  journal  of  each  house  respectively.  If  any  bill  shall  not  be 
returned  by  the  President  within  ten  days  (Sundays  excepted)  after 
it  shall  have  been  xtresented  to  him,  the  same  shall  be  a law,  in  like 
manner  as  if  he  had  signed  it,  unle.^s  the  Congress  bytheir  adjourn- 
ment itrevent  its  return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a law. 

3.  Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the 
Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary  (except  on 
a question  of  adjournment)  shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States;  and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be 
aiii^roved  by  him,  or  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  rei)assed 
by  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  accord 
ing  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  ease  of  a bill. 

Section  VIII.  Powers  gratded  to  Congress. 

The  Congress  shall  have  power; 

1.  To  lay  and  collect  taxes,  ditties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay 
the  debts  and  ))rovide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare 
of  the  United  States;  but  all  duties,  imxiosts.  and  excises  shall  be 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States; 

3.  To  borrow  money  on  the  ci’edit  of  the  United  States: 

3.  To  regulate  commei’ce  with  foreign  nations  and  among  the 
several  States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes: 

4.  To  establish  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  uniform 
laws  on  the  subject  of  bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States; 

5.  To  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thei’eof,  and  of  foreign  coin^ 
and  fix  the  standard  of  iveights  and  measures: 

6.  To  xuovide  for  the  j)unishment  of  counterfeiting  the  securities 
and  current  coin  of  the  United  States; 


APPENDIX. 


335 


7.  To  establish  post-offlees  and  post-i'oads ; 

8.  To  promote  the  progress  of  science  and  useful  arts  by  securing 
for  limited  times  to  authors  and  inventors  the  exclusive  right  to 
their  respective  writings  and  discoveries; 

9.  To  constitute  tribunals  inferior  to  the  Supreme  Court; 

10.  To  define  and  punish  piracies  and  felonies  committed  cn  the 
high  seas  and  offenses  against  the  law  of  nations ; 

11.  To  declare  war,  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal,  and  make 
rules  concerning  captures  on  land  and  watei-; 

12.  To  raise  and  support  armies,  but  no  appropriation  of  money 
to  that  use  shall  be  for  a longer  term  than  two  years; 

IB.  To  provide  and  maintain  a navy; 

14.  To  make  rules  for  the  government  and  regulation  of  the  land 
and  naval  forces; 

15.  To  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of 
the  Union,  suppress  insurrections,  and  repel  invasions; 

16.  To  provide  for  organizing,  arming,  and  disciplining  the  militia, 
and  for  governing  such  part  of  them  as  maybe  employed  in  the  ser- 
vice of  the  United  States,  reserving  to  the  States  respectively  the 
appointment  of  the  officers,  and  the  authority  of  training  the  militia 
according  to  the  discipline  prescribed  by  Congress; 

17.  To  exercise  exclusive  legisiation  in  all  cases  whatsoever  over 
such  district  (not  exceeding  ten  miles  square)  as  may,  by  cession  of 
particular  States  and  the  acceptance  of  Congress,  become  the  seat 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  exercise  like  au- 
thority over  all  places  purchased  by  the  consent  of  the  legislature 
of  the  State  in  which  the  same  shall  be,  for  the  erection  of  forts, 
magazines,  arsenals,  dockyards,  and  other  needful  buildings;  and 

18.  To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  for  car 
rying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers 
vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof. 

Section.  JiU.  Restrictions  on  the  United  States. 

1.  The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the 
States  now  existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit  shall  not  be  prohib- 
ited by  the  Congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  eight,  but  a tax  or  duty  may  be  imposed  on  such  importation, 
not  exceeding  ten  dollars  for  each  person. 

2.  The  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  sus- 
pended, unless  when  in  cases  of  rebellion  or  invasion  the  public 
safety  may  require  it. 

3.  No  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be  passed. 

4.  No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid,  unless  in  propor 
tion  to  the  census  or  enumeration  hereinbefore  directed  to  be  taken. 


APPENDIX. 


336 

5.  No  taxor  duty  yhall  be  laid  on  articles  exported  from  any  State. 

6.  No  preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or 
revenue  to  the  ports  of  one  State  over  those  of  another;  nor  shall 
ve.ssels  bound  to  or  from  one  State  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay 
duties  in  anothei'. 

T.  No  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  treasury  but  in  consequence 
of  apnroijriations  made  by  law;  and  a regular  statement  and  ac- 
count of  the  receipts  and  expenditures  of  all  public  money  shall  be 
published  fi’om  time  to  time. 

8,  No  title  of  nobility  shall  be  granted  by  the  United  States;  and 
no  person  holding  any  office  of  profit  or  trust  under  them  shall, 
without  the  consent  of  the  Congress,  accept  of  any  present,  emolu- 
ment, office,  or  title,  of  any  kind  whatever,  from  any  king,  prince, 
or  foreign  State. 


Section.  A'.  Potvera  Relinqiuished  hy  tht  states. 

1.  No  State  sliall  enter  into  any  treaty,  alliance,  or  confederation: 
grant  letters  of  marque  and  repri.sal;  coin  money:  emit  bills  of  credit; 
make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a tender  in  payment  cf 
debts;  pass  any  bill  of  attainder,  ex  post  facto  law,  or  law  impairing 
the  obligation  of  contracts,  or  grant  any  title  of  nobility. 

2.  No  Stateshall.  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any’  imposts 
or  duties  on  imports  or  exports,  except  what  may’  be  absolutely  nec- 
essary for  executing  its  inspection  laws;  and  the  net  produce  of  all 
duties  and  imposts,  laid  by  any  State  on  imports  or  exports,  shall 
be  for  the  use  of  the  treasury  of  the  United  States;  and  all  such 
laws  shall  be  subject  to  the  revision  and  control  of  the  Congress. 

3.  No  State  shall,  without  the  consent  of  Congress,  lay  any  duty’ 
of  tonnage,  keep  troops  or  .^hips  of  war  in  time  of  peace,  enter  into 
any  agreement  or  compact  with  another  State  or  with  a foreign 
power,  or  engage  in  war,  unless  actually  invaded  or  in  such  immi- 
nent danger  as  will  not  admit  of  delay. 

Artich  II.  E.x-e(-ntlre  Department. 

Section  I.  Pre.sirJent  and  Vice  President. 

1 . The  executive  power  shall  be  vested  in  a President  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  He  shall  hold  his  office  during  the  term  of  four 
years,  and  together  with  the  Vice-President,  chosen  for  the  same 
term,  be  elected  as  follows. 

2.  Each  State  shall  appoint,  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature 
thereof  may  direct,  a number  of  electors,  equal  to. the  whole  num- 
ber of  Senators  and  Representatives  to  which  the  State  may’  be  en- 
titled in  the  Congress;  but  no  Senator  or  Representative,  or  person 
holding  an  office  of  tru.st  or  profit  under  the  United  States,  shall  be 
appointed  an  elector. 


APPENDIX. 


337 


3.  [The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States  and  vote  by 
ballot  for  two  persons,  of  whom  one  at  least  shall  not  be  an  inhabi 
tant  of  the  same  State  with  themselves.  And  they  shall  make  a list 
of  all  the  persons  voted  for,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each ; 
which  list  they  shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the 
seat  of  government  of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  President 
of  the  Senate.  The  President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence 
of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates, 
and  the  votes  shall  then  be  counted.  The  person  having  the  great- 
est number  of  votes  shall  be  the  President,  if  such  number  be  a ma- 
jority of  the  whole  number  of  electors  appointed;  and  if  there  be 
more  than  one  who  have  such  majority,  and  have  an  equal  number 
of  votes,  then  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  immediately  choose 
by  ballot  one  of  them  for  President;  and  if  no  person  have  a ma- 
jority, then  from  the  five  highest  on  the  list  the  said  House  shall  in 
like  manner  choose  the  President.  But  in  choosing  the  President 
the  vmtes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  representation  from  each 
State  having  one  vote ; a quorum  for  this  purpose  shall  consist  of  a 
member  or  members  Horn  two-thirds  of  the  States,  and  a majority 
of  all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a choice.  In  every  case,  after 
the  choice  of  the  President,  the  person  having  the  greatest  number  of 
votes  of  the  electors  shall  be  the  Vice-President.  But  if  there  should 
remain  two  or  more  who  have  equal  votes,  the  Senate  shall  choose  from 
them  by  ballot  the  Vice-Pre.sident.]  ‘ 

4.  The  Congress  may  determine  the  time  of  choosing  the  electors  and 
the  day  on  which  they  shall  give  their  votes,  which  day  shall  be  the 
same  throughout  the  United  States. 

5.  No  person  excef)t  a natural- bom  citizen,  or  a citizen  of  the  United 
States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible 
to  the  office  of  President;  neither  shall  any  person  be  eligible  to  that 
office  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  age  of  thirty-five  years,  and 
been  fourteen  years  a resident  within  the  United  States. 

6.  In  case  of  the  removal  of  the  President  from  office,  or  of  his  death, 
resignation,  or  inability  to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said 
office,  the  same  shall  devolve  on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  Congress 
may'by  law  provide  for  the  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation,  or  ina- 
bility, both  of  the  President  and  Vice-President,  declaring  what  officer 
shall  then  act  as  President,  and  such  officer  shall  act  accordingly  until 
the  disability  be  removed  or  a President  shall  be  elected. 

7.  The  President  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  his  services  a com- 
pensation, which  shall  neither  be  increased  nor  diminished  during  the 
period  for  which  he  may  have  been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive 

^This  clause  of  the  Constitution  has  been  amended.  See  Amend- 
ments, Art.  XII. 

22 


338 


APPENDIX. 


within  that  period  any  other  emolument  from  the  United  State.s  or  any 
of  them. 

8.  Before  he  enter  on  the  execution  of  his  office  he  shall  take  the  fol- 
lowing oath  or  affirmation: 

*•  I do  solemnly  swear  (or  affiim)  that  I will  faithfull3'  execute  the 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will  to  the  best  of  my 
abilitj'  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.” 

Section  II.  Powers  of  the  President. 

1 . The  President  shall  be  Commander-in-chief  of  the  Armj-  and  Nav}- 
of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  militia  of  the  several  States  when  called 
into  the  actual  service  of  the  United  States;  he  may  require  the  opin- 
ion, in  writing,  of  the  principal  officer  in  each  of  the  executive  depart- 
ments, upon  any  subject  relating  to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offi- 
ces, and  he  shall  have  jjower  to  grant  reiudeves  and  pardons  for  offenses 
against  the  United  States,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment. 

2.  He  shall  have  power,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  to  make  treaties,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present 
concur;  and  he  shall  nominate,  and.  by  and  with  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers 
and  consuls.  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the 
United  States,  whose  appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided 
for,  and  which  shall  be  established  by  law;  but  the  Congress  maj'  b\' 
law  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers,  as  thej’  think  proper, 
in  the  President  alone,  in  the  courts  of  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments. 

8.  The  President  shall  have  power  to  fill  up  all  vacancies  that  may 
happen  during  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  b\'  granting  commissions  which 
shall  expire  at  the  end  of  their  next  session.  ‘ 

Section  III.  Duties  of  the  President. 

He  shall  from  time  to  time  give  to  the  Congress  information  of  the 
state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their  consideration  such  meas- 
ures as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient;  he  may,  on  extraordi- 
nary occasions,  convene  both  houses,  or  either  of  them,  and  in  case  of 
disagreement  between  them  with  respect  to  the  time  of  adjournment, 
he  maj’  adjourn  them  to  such  time  as  he  shall  think  proper:  he  shall  re- 
ceive ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers;  he  shall  take  care  that 
the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  commisMon  all  the  officers  of 
the  United  States. 


1 It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  the  President  to  appoint  a party 
during  a recess  of  the  Senate,  and  then  to  reappoint  him  if  the  Senate 
neglects  or  refuses  to  confirm  the  appointment,  and  so  on  toties  quoties. 
In  this  way  he  nullifies  the  Constitution. 


APPENDIX. 


339 


Section  IV.  Impeachment. 

The  President.  Vice-President  and  all  civil  officers  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeachment  for  and  conviction 
of  treason,  bribei'y  or  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors. 

Article  III.  Judicial  Department. 

Section  I.  United  States  Courts. 

The  judicial  ijower  of  the  United  States  shall  be  v^ested  in  one  Su- 
preme Court,  and  in  such  inferior  courts  as  the  Congress  may  from 
time  to  time  ordain  and  establish.  The  judges,  both  of  the  supreme 
and  inferior  courts,  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior,  and 
shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  their  services  a compensation  which 
shall  not  be  diminished  during  their  continuance  in  office. 

Section  II.  Jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  Courts. 

1.  The  judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases,  in  law  and  equity, 
arising  under  this  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be  made,  under  their  authority  ; to  all 
cases  affecting  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls  ; to  all 
cases  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction  ; to  controversies  to  which 
the  United  States  shall  be  a party;  to  controversies  between  two  or 
more  States  ; between  a State  and  citizens  of  another  State  ; between 
citizens  of  different  States  ; between  citizens  of  the  same  State  claim- 
ing lands  under  grants  of  different  States,  and  between  a State,  or  the 
citizens  thereof,  and  foreign  States,  citizens,  or  subjects.  * 

2.  In  all  cases  affecting  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  con- 
suls, and  those  in  which  a State  shall  be  a party,  the  Supreme  Court 
shall  have  original  jurisdiction.  In  all  the  other  oases  before  mentioned 
the  Supreme  Court  shall  have  appellate  jurisdiction,  both  as  to  law  and 
fact,  with  such  exceptions,  and  under  such  regulations  as  the  Congress 
shall  make. 

3.  The  trial  of  all  crimes,  except  in  cases  of  impeachment,  shall  be 
by  jury  ; and  such  trial  shall  be  held  in  the  State  where  the  said  crimes 
shall  have  been  committed ; but  when  not  committed  within  any  State, 
the  trial  shall  be  at  such  place  or  places  as  the  Congress  may  by  law 
have  directed. 

Section  III.  Treason. 

!.  Treason  against  the  United  States  shall  consist  only  in  levying  war 
against  them,  or  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and 
comfort.  No  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason  unless  on  the  testi- 
mony of  two  witnesses  to  the  same  overt  act,  or  on  confession  in  open 
court. 


•This  clause  has  been  amended.  See  Amendments,  Art.  XI. 


APPENDIX. 


3J:0 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  declare  the  punishment  of 
treason,  but  no  attainder  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood  or 
forfeiture  except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attained. 

Article  IV.  Mutual  Obligations  assumed  by  the  States. 

Section  I.  State  Records. 

Full  faith  and  credit  shall  be  given  in  each  State  to  the  jjublic  acts, 
records,  and  judicial  proceedings  of  every  other  State.  And  the  Con- 
gress may  by  general  laws  prescribe  the  manner  in  which  such  acts, 
records,  and  proceedings  shall  be  proved,  and  the  effect  thereof. 

Section  II.  Obligations  as  to  privileges  of  citizens  and  of  fugitives  from 
justice  or  labor. 

1.  The  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and 
immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  States. 

2.  A person  charged  in  any  State  with  treason,  felony,  or  other  crime, 
who  shall  flee  from  justice,  and  be  found  in  another  State,  shall,  on 
demand  of  the  executive  authority  of  the  State  from  which  he  fled,  be 
delivered  up,  to  be  removed  to  the  State  having  jurisdiction  of  the 
crime. 

3.  No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under  the  laws 
thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or 
regulation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or  labor,  but  shall 
be  delivered  up  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor 
may  be  due. 

Section  III.  New  States  and  the  Public  Lands. 

1.  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union  : but 
no  new  State  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
other  State  ; nor  any  State  be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or  more 
States  or  parts  of  States,  without  the  consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the 
States  concerned  as  well  as  of  the  Congi-ess. 

2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of  and  make  all  needful 
rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  tenitory  or  other  property  belong- 
ing to  the  United  States  - and  nothing  in  this  Constitution  shall  be  so 
construed  as  to  prejudice  any  claims  of  the  United  States  or  of  any  par- 
ticular State. 

Section  IV.  Guarantee  from  all  the  States  to  each. 

The  United  States  shall  guarantee  to  eveiy  State  in  this  Union  a re- 
publican form  of  government,  and  shall  protect  each  of  them  against 
invasion,  and  on  application  of  the  legislature,  or  of  the  executive 
(when  the  legislature  cannot  be  convened),  against  domestic  violence. 


APPENDIX. 


311 


Article  V.  Foimr  of  Amendment. 

The  Congress,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  houses  shall  deem  it  neo 
<essary,  sliall  propose  amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or.  on  the  appli- 
-cation  of  the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call 

convention  for  proposing  amendments,  which  in  either  case  shall  be 
valid  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as  part  of  this  Com-titution,  when  rati- 
fied by  the  legislatures  of  three-fourths  of  the  several  States,  or  by  con- 
ventions in  tliree-fourths  thereof,  as  tlie  one  or  the  other  mode  of  rati- 
fication may  be  proposed  by  the  Congress,  provided  that  no  amendments 
wliich  may  be  made  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eight  shall  in  any  manner  affect  the  first  and  fourth  clauses  in  the  ninth 
section  of  the  first  article;  and  that  no  State,  without  its  consent,  shall 
be  deprived  of  its  equal  suffrage  in  the  Senate. 

Article  VI.  Public  Debt;  Supremacy  of  the  Constitution,  Laics,  and 
Treaties;  Oath  of  Office;  iVo  Religious  Test. 

1.  All  debts  contracted  and  engagements  entered  into,  before  the 
adoption  of  tliis  Constitution,  shall  be  as  valid  against  the  United  States 
under  this  Constitution  as  under  the  confederation. 

2.  This  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  wliich  shall 
be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  treaties  made,  or  which  shall  be 
made,  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land  ; and  the  judges  in  every  State  shall  be  bound  thereby, 
anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. 

3.  The  Senators  and  Representatives  before  mentioned,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  several  State  legislatures,  and  all  executive  and  judicial 
officers  both  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  several  States,  shall  be 
bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  this  Constitution  ; but  no  relig- 
ious test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a qualification  to  any  office  or  pub- 
lic trust  under  the  United  States. 

Article  VII.  Ratification  of  the  Constitution. 

The  ratification  of  the  conventions  of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient 
for  the  ratification  of  this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying 
the  same. 

Amendments  proposed  by  the  Congress  September  25,  1789,  and  de- 
clared in  force  December  15,  1791  : 

Article  I. 

Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  establishment  of  religion, 
or  prohibiting  the  free  exercise  thereof ; or  abridging  the  freedom  of 
speech  or  of  the  press  ; or  the  right  of  the  people  peaceably  to  assem- 
ble, and  to  petition  the  government  for  a redress  of  grievances. 


342 


APPENDIX. 


Article  II. 

A well-regulated  militia  being  necessary  to  the  security  of  a free 
State,  the  right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall  not  be  in- 
fringed. 

Article  III. 

No  soldier  shall,  in  time  of  peace,  be  quartered  in  any  house  without 
the  consent  of  the  owner,  nor  m time  of  war,  but  in  a manner  to  be 
prescribed  by  law. 

Article  IV. 

The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers, 
and  effects,  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures,  shall  not  be 
violated,  and  no  warrants  shall  issue  but  upon  probable  cause,  sup- 
j)orted  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to 
be  searched,  and  the  person  or  things  to  be  seized. 

Article  V. 

No  person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a capital  or  otherwise  infamous 
crime,  unless  on  a presentment  or  indictment  of  a grand  jury,  except 
in  cases  arising  in  the  land  or  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia,  when  in 
actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger ; nor  shall  any  person  be 
subject  for  the  same  offense  to  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb; 
nor  shall  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case  to  be  a witness  against  him- 
self. nor  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process  of 
law  ; nor  shall  private  proi^eidy  be  taken  for  public  use  without  just 
compensation. 

Article  IT. 

In  all  criminal  prosecutions  the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a 
S2:)eedy  and  f)ublic  trial,  by  an  impartial  jury  of  the  State  and  district 
wherein  the  crime  shall  have  been  committed,  which  district  shall  have 
been  previously  ascertained  by  law,  and  to  be  informed  of  the  nature 
and  cause  of  the  accusation  ; to  be  confronted  with  the  witnesses  against 
him  ; to  have  comi3ul.sory  process  for  obtaining  witnesses  in  Ins  favor, 
and  to  have  the  assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defence. 

Article  VII. 

In  suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversj'  shall  exceed 
twenty  dollars,  the  right  of  trial  bj"  jury  shall  be  preserved,  and  no  fact 
tried  by  a jury  shall  be  otherwise  re-examined  in  any  court  of  the 
United  States,  than  according  to  the  rules  of  the  common  law. 

Article  VIIL 

Excessive  bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines  imposed,  nor 
cruel  and  unusual  punishments  inflicted. 


APPENDIX. 


34:3 


Article  IX. 

Tlie  enumeration  in  the  Constitution  of  certain  rights  shall  not  be 
construed  to  deny  or  disparage  others  retained  by  the  people. 

Article  X. 

The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution, 
nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respec- 
tively or  to  the  people. 

Amendment  proposed  by  the  Congress  March  5,  1794,  and  declared  in 
force  Jan.  8,  1798. 

At  tide  XI. 

The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  construed  to 
extend  to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prosecuted  against 
one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  citizens  or 
subjects  of  any  foreign  State, 

Amendment  proposed  by  the  Congress  Dec.  12,  1803,  and  declared  in 
force  Sept.  2.1,  1804. 

Artide  XII. 

The  electors  shall  meet  in  their  respective  States  and  vote  b}^  ballot 
for  President  and  Vice-President,  one  of  whom,  at  least,  shall  not  be 
an  inhabitant  of  the  same  State  with  themselves ; they  shall  name  in 
their  ballots  the  person  voted  for  as  President,  and  in  distinct  ballots 
the  person  voted  for  as  Vice-President,  and  they  shall  make  distinct 
lists  of  all  persons  voted  for  as  President  and  of  all  persons  voted  for  as 
Vice-President,  and  of  the  number  of  votes  for  each  ; which  lists  they 
shall  sign  and  certify,  and  transmit  sealed  to  the  seat  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  directed  to  the  President  of  the  Senate. 
The  President  of  the  Senate  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives,  open  all  the  certificates  and  the  votes  shall 
be  counted.  The  person  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  for  Presi- 
dent shall  be  the  President,  if  such  number  be  a majority  of  the  whole 
number  of  electors  appointed  ; and  if  no  person  have  such  majorit3^ 
then  from  the  persons  having  the  highest  numbers  not  exceeding  three 
on  the  list  of  those  voted  for  as  President,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives shall  choose  immediately,  by  ballot,  the  President.  But  in 
choosing  the  President  the  votes  shall  be  taken  by  States,  the  rep- 
resentation from  each  State  having  one  vote;  a quorum  for  this 
purpose  shall  consist  of  a member  or  members  from  two-thirds  of  the 
States,  and  a majority  of  all  the  States  shall  be  necessary  to  a choice. 
And  if  the  Hou.se  of  Representatives  shall  not  choose  a President 
whenever  the  right  of  choice  shall  devolve  upon  them,  before  the  fourth 
day  of  March  next  following,  then  the  Vice-President  shall  act  as 
President,  as  in  the  case  of  the  death  or  other  constitutional  disability 
of  the  President. 


APPENDIX. 


SU 

2.  Tlie  persoji  having  the  greatest  number  of  votes  as  Vice-President 
shall  be  the  Vice-President,  if  sucli  number  be  a majority  of  the  whole 
number  of  electors  appointed:  and  if  no  person  have  a majority,  then 
from  the  two  Iiighest  numbers  on  the  list  the  Senate  shall  choose  the 
Vice-President ; a quoimm  for  the  purpose  shall  consist  of  two-tWrds  of 
the  whole  dumber  of  Senators,  and  a majority  of  the  whole  number 
shall  be  necessary  to  a choice. 

3.  But  no  person  constitutionally  ineligible  to  the  (;fficp  of  President 
shall  be  eligible  to  that  of  Vice-President  of  tlie  United  States. 

Amendment  proposed  by  the  Congress  of  the  (24)  United  States,  the 
11  Southern  States  not  being  represented,  Feb.  1,  1865.  and  adopted  by 
the  legislatures  of  26  States,  including  8 States  vvliich  ” the  government" 
refused  afterwards  to  recognize  as  States. 

Article  XIII. 

1.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a punislunent 
for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  liave  been  duly  convicted,  sliall 
exist  witliin  the  United  States  or  any  place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. 

2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by  appropriate 
legislation. 

Amendment  proposed  by  the  Congress  of  the  (25)  United  States,  the 
11  Soutliern  States  having  no  voice  in  it,  and  ratified  by  the  legislatures 
of  29  States  (of  which  New-  Jersey,  Oregon,  and  Ohio  afterwards  re- 
pealed their  ratifying  ordinances),  including  8 Southern  States  which 
were  under  the  control  of  Northern  adventurers  and  the  ex-slaves. 

Article  XIV. 

1.  All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  tliereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
States  wherein  they  reside.  No  State  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law 
which  shall  abridge  the  privileges  or  immunities  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States  ; nor  shall  any  State  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty, 
or  pi'operty,  without  due  process  of  law;  nor  deny  to  any  person  within 
its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

2.  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  several  States  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  numbers,  counting  the  whole  number  of 
persons  in  each  State,  excluding  Indians  not  taxed.  But  when  the 
right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the  choice  of  electors  for  President  and 
Vice-President  of  the  United  States,  Representatives  in  Congress,  the  ex- 
ecutive and  judicial  officers  of  a State,  or  the  members  of  the  legislature 
thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  of  such  State,  being 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any- 
way abridged,  except  for  participation  in  rebellion,  or  other  crime,  the 
basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be  reduced  in  the  proportion  which 
the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall  bear  to  the  whole  number  of  « 
male  citizens  twenty -one  years  of  age  in  such  State. 


APPENDIX. 


345 


8.  No  person  .shall  be  a Senator  or  Representative  in  Congress,  or 
elector  of  President  and  Vice-President,  or  hold  any  office,  civil  or  mil- 
itary, under  the  United  States  or  under  any  State,  who,  having  previ- 
ously taken  an  oath  as  a ineniber  of  Congress,  or  as  an  officer  of  the 
United  States,  or  as  a member  of  any  State  legislature,  or  as  an  execu- 
tive or  judicial  officer  of  any  State,  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  shall  have  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebellion  against 
the  same,  or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  But  Congress 
may,  by  a vote  of  two-thirds  of  each  hou^e,  remove  such  a disability. 

4.  The  validity  of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States,  authorized  by 
law,  including  debts  incui'red  for  payment  of  pt  iisions  and  bounties  for 
services  in  suppressing  insurrection  or  rebellion,  shall  not  be  questioned. 
But  neither  the  United  States  nor  any  State  shall  assume  or  pay  any 
debt  or  obligation  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection  or  rebellion  against 
the  United  States,  or  any  claim  for  the  loss  or  emancipation  of  any 
slave;  but  all  such  debts,  obligations,  and  claims  shall  be  held  illegal 
and  void. 

5.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce,  by  appropriate  legisla- 
tion, the  provisions  of  this  article. 

Amendment  prof)Osed  by  the  Congress  of  the  (2.>)  United  States,  the 
11  Southern  States  not  being  represented,  and  ratified  by  the  legisla- 
tures of  18  States  and  11  military  despotisms  in  the  South. 


Article  XU. 

Section  1.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall 
not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State  on  ac- 
count of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Section  2.  Tiie  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article  by 
apinopriate  legislation.  ^ 


‘It  would  be  tlifficult  to  frame  another  amendment  containing  in  it 
such  invincible  evidence  of  the  ignorance  of  the  framers.  "The  right 
of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote" — the  right  depending,  as  this 
amendment  implies,  on  the  fact  that  they  are  "citizens  of  the  United 
States” — never  was  heard  of  belore  18(37.  ' Women  and  children  are 
"citizens  " as  well  as  the  husbands  and  fathers  ; and  the  " right  to  vote 
was  under  the  exclusive  control  of  each  State.  And  the  right  of  the 
United  States  to  "deny”  or  "abridge"  the  elective  franchise  in  a State 
was  never  heard  of  before  nor  since  that  date. 


I 


Date  Due 


T3cr 


fgi^Apr  12*3SF 


- X ^ 

::  - J ■- 


4-  v'j; 


'js^  :»# 


V-'  x-  ^ ,<^4^*^*. 


f^\ 


W#":77'  <0 


->V 


Library  Bureau  Cat.  no.  1137 


:-r< 


. . ' ''■  ' ■'~  -c 


^ X 


'^0  .■'^  C^. 


* u*~ 


■*t.  X 


::v- 


V.- 


-^ZXL 1 


#«.  sj*®*  a^-^...x->' ' -■^  '>?,  -x"  7 


.€k4’J^xi!V. 


* 


,■  # * 


Duke  University  Libraries 


D00331771M 


9^',  713 
Grady 


==____l^ ISSUED  TO 

vAiQiait  0/  ^ 

572.713  0733  209S52' 


